Monday, July 19, 2010

A Principal's Speech............what do you think?

By Dennis Prager: The speech every American high-school principal should give. (If every high-school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.)
To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers, and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow, or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian, or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial, or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race-, and non-American-nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values — e pluribus unum, “from many, one.” And this school will be guided by America’s values.

That includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial, or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism — an unhealthy preoccupation with the self — while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry, and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic or racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America’s citizens for more than 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensible reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English-language skills, I will have been remiss in my duty to ensure that you are prepared to compete successfully in the American job market. We will learn other languages here — it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English — but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning’s elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for a meal at a nice restaurant than they do for church or school. These people have their priorities backwards. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school’s property — whether in class, in the hallways, or at athletic events. If you can’t speak without using the F-word, you can’t speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission plus epithets such as the N-word, even when used by one black student to address another, or “bitch,” even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few of your age to distinguish instinctively between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school self-esteem will be attained in only one way (the way people attained it until the state of California decided otherwise a generation ago) — by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom-wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual, or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates from this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky — to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

What do you think of this? Anything you'd change or add or delete?
z

179 comments:

psi bond said...

In short, I think this Dennis Prager column from last week promotes an extreme rightwing agenda — a utopian one at that, an authoritarian one that is guaranteed to generate a lot of bitter controversy if put into effect.

The Born Again American said...

Z,
Where do you get these morons like psi?

That was brilliant and the sooner we get back to what made this country great, the sooner we can get out this mess idiots like psi got us in...

Always On Watch said...

I can't imagine such a speech here in Northern Virginia's public schools. In fact, most principals' speeches are filled with exactly the opposite of the concepts in this post. **sigh**

Trestin said...

Denis Prager has become my 2nd most liked figure in the conservative media

Linda said...

This was great. Our city governments need to apply these same principles, from the PRINCIPAL!

Linda said...

I reposted this with a HT back to you!

Sue said...

If only!!! The situation he described would be a wonderful setting in which our children could learn. I plan on reading more of Mr. Prager's thoughts...

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx

Anonymous said...

Z, I think the speech is great. I think as well that you'll get a lot of protest from the other side for this post. This kind of thing scares them in the same way that Palin does.

psi, your perspective is off. The majority, the former silent majority in this country, is conservative. The evidence shows that they're waking up, and speaking out against the insanity. The educational system in the US today would be better described as child abuse by neglect, and that needs to Change Now.

~ Will

Anonymous said...

Now that is superb intellectual guidance. Maybe there is a new day dawning in America and other places on the planet after all.

Had some visitors this weekend from the NYC area who have two young children. A little boy six and little girl four years old. While they were playing I was surprised to hear the little girl singing "America the Beautiful". When I asked if they taught that song in kindergarten I learned that the kids go to private school and at that school songs like that are taught. These are young parents who immigrated to the USA about 15 years ago — so that should prove that the American Dream isn't quite as dead as some people might think it is.

Waylon

P. S. I did applaud her singing and choice of songs!

Ducky's here said...

First question I'd ask is how he is going to teach math and physics without having good qualified teachers.

Or any of the other sciences. If he's lucky he's in an inner city school with no labs.

... but they'll know the words to the pledge.

First thing I'd do would be to ask about "American values". When he gives me some right wing crap I'm going to give him a lecture on the history of he left in America (since he's a right winger his history is more than likely lame) and take it to the school board.

Is this loser going to be teaching young earth and intelligent design?

Of course it goes without saying that Prager doesn't have the juice to discuss race and ethnicity honestly and openly.

... and I'd start by teaching the youngsters "This Land Is My Land" and lots of Woody Guthrie. That should kick off the band.

beamish said...

"Everyone go home. Public education has no Constitutional mandate."

beamish said...

Where do you get these morons like psi?

PsiBond is no mere moron. He's worked very hard at arriving at and maintaining his imbecile status.

Ducky's here said...

"So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy ..."

He's going to restore the arts budget? Not likely.

Astronomy? Hell of an elective ... can't wait till he finds teachers who can handle parallax and the red shift.

You see in Prager's fantasy world there are no issues other than reciting the Pledge. Once you do that everything else is a snap.

Ducky's here said...

Hi, I'm Mrs. Palin and I'll be teaching Shakespeare this semester.

JINGOIST said...

This is a BRILLIANT speech that needs to be given at every school.. I wish Dennis had political ambitions, I'd love to vote for someone of his talents and character. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI

Craig and Heather said...

Z,

Interesting post.





Is this loser going to be teaching young earth and intelligent design?

Um. Ducky.

It takes faith to believe in the Big Bang just as it does to believe in the concept of Intelligent Design.

Young earth might be debatable, as our scientific methods seem to indicate "billions of years". On the other hand, it is only necessary to cling to "old earth" theories if you have a completely naturalistic view which discounts the possibility of a supernaturally existent Master Creator who very well could have designed a young earth with only the appearance of age.

The subjects of the origin the universe and life bleed heavily into the realm of "religion"--and possibly history.

If the views can be categorized as religious, then forwarding of either one violates the goal of separation of church and state.

If history, then both views ought to be offered in an unbiased manner because neither can be "proven" from our current vantage point.

H

Mustang said...

Any school principal making such a speech wouldn’t have his or her job longer than five additional nano-seconds. This is because a principal such as this apparently doesn’t understand the socialist plan for America and also, because we have too many lame-brains like psiBond and Ducky as parents, members of the school board, as district supervisors, and local politicians. The school system in this country is broken, and so too are 90% of people involved in it.

beamish said...

Astronomy? Hell of an elective ... can't wait till he finds teachers who can handle parallax and the red shift.

You see in Prager's fantasy world there are no issues other than reciting the Pledge. Once you do that everything else is a snap.


We've reached the point where YOUR leftist solution, increasing the amount of money thrown at public education now has NASA's primary mission doing penance for daring to land spacecraft on the face of Islam's god, so what's wrong with trying something else?

Faith said...

It's a great speech, too bad if nobody ever actually gave it.

shoprat said...

The Department of Education's existence is unconstitutional but as long as we have one, let's put this man in charge of it, until we fully restore the Constitution.

Z said...

does anybody see where Prager mandates for teachers not to be competent!?

This is apparently quite threatening to some, I had no idea. It seems so basic that we put ethnicity, etc., aside and celebrate the person, not the color or creeed...You know, Dr. King's message.

seems so basic to dress appropriately at schools once again.

Who can argue that all should learn English as fast as my grandfather did when he came here (legally) at the age of nine and learned it in 3 months because he was immersed in it and DID IT.(no special classes necessary, but they DO give our teachers today a higher salary if they can teach it)...why expect so much less of minorities today? Seems a little...racist..to me somehow.

Who can argue that it builds character when ONE valedictorian is chosen instead of eight so the other seven's feelings were not hurt? Losing builds CHARACTER. Or argue that T Ball games should have SCORES so the children get used to winning and losing..?

And who can argue that teachers need to TEACH and not indoctrinate?
I don't believe Mr. Prager was pushing religious teachings in school, just good character...well, maybe that IS one and the same.

Well, I suppose there are some who are threatened by all the above...apparently so. How fascinating.

These things make some very nervous.....when, really, it's good manners, expecting the best from our children and telling them so, encouraging good character and expecting good grades, interesting extracurricular classes,not allowing derogatory language between students and (gasp) exposed to American values. We all were, and that worked quite well....for MOST of us.

JINGOIST said...

FANTASTIC answer Z! It ranks right up there with your best. Who would have thunk that Prager's opinion would be so controvrsial? It goes to show you how much the political left has moved the bar for "normal."

Even though our grandparents came from different places, they were the same. They loved America, and the LEARNED THE LANGUAGE ASAP!!!

Did you watch that video link? Dennis is an impressive guy.

Z said...

thanks, Jingo, and yes, I have listened to that video before and it is very special, isn't it.
The man loves this country, sees its warts and all, and believes in the American people to continue as our founding fathers planned.
HOW THREATENING! :-)

JINGOIST said...

I wonder if we could convince him to run for President? wishful thinking...

Stop on by and see my latest.

Z said...

Jingo, MANY have tried to get Prager to do that but he is convinced by so many listeners that he can do more good on the radio 3 hours a day.
I have at least 3 friends who were liberals and who actually think about what he says and have made statements since starting to listen which give me hope. They've really turned around.
He's decent, never insults, likes what he calls "Clarity" (nobody has to agree with him) and wins people over.

Anonymous said...

Z, this is great. It would be the answer to a first class academic education.

It is not utopia, there is no such thing, and anyone who thinks it is, has a disdain for high standards.

Without a prevailing authority, children have no guidlines, which of course the left has been tearing down for decades.

This speech is a call for young people to earn the reward of achievemnet.

It eliminates the current social experiments thought up by factions who have no problem in manipulating children and assigning them to different categories of race, gender, sexual orientation, and hyphenated national origins.

Put very simply, it does nothing more than state, that students will receive an academic education, and will be graded on their performance. Period.

The trends of the day, will not be their concern. Their concern will be learning, not what to think, but how to think.

For the students, the school environment should be a place which demands respect for their elders, teachers. And the teachers should behave like adults not aging teenagers.

Furthermore, dress reflects attitude. Sloppy is as sloppy does. School should not be a day at the beach. A certain formality mirrors respect for where you are.

Am I old fashioned? Probably. However, what works best, is what's important. Discipline and a positive, serious, effort for the most successful result to produce productive, responsible citizens, should be the goal.

What Dennis proposes is close to the school environment I experienced years ago. It worked. The fact it was years ago, does not mean it wasn't most effective.

We all knew this: That whatever result we attained, was of our own individual doing. Also, the drop out rate from public school, was nothing like it is today.

Finally, Dennis Prager is a treasure. A clear thinker, and a man who embodies common sense, something I'm afraid, that the left will never comprehend.

Pris

Anonymous said...

Hasn't "This Land is my Land" now the national anthem on all North American Indian reservations. Figures it would be taught by the product of the European Bolsheviks and the Frankfurt School proteges who fled Europe like the cowards they were, I guess.

Ducky do you wear your pants below your ass crack to try to be cool at "school"?

Waylon

JINGOIST said...

Yaaaaa!!!! Great news!

Lynne Stewart, communist traitor, lawyer to terrorists, and re-used scumbag extraordinaire was sentenced to 10 years by a judge in Manhattan!

That just makes my day all the more sunnier. :-) It's a good day.

Anonymous said...

GIVE THAT MAN A RAISE!!!!!!!!

I can only hope he wasn't fired.

Silvrlady

psi bond said...

In short, I think this Dennis Prager column from last week promotes an extreme rightwing agenda — a utopian one at that, an authoritarian one that is guaranteed to generate a lot of bitter controversy if put into effect.

Anonymous said...

I just forwarded this to a group of people, even a liberal or two.

Silvrlady

Craig and Heather said...

I think I can participate in the discussion, now.


Concerning the speech:

1. All of us ought to learn to respect other human beings, and show no favoritism with regard to race, gender etc. Good point.

2. English is our national language. All citizens ought to be able to communicate on at least a basic level.

3. Dress code. Way over the top. There is a connection between the way one dresses and his general attitude. Not sure how forcing formal attire on students would do much to alter the root of the problem, though.

4. Obscene language intolerance. I'd say both #3 and #4 would fall under the umbrella of #1. Respect other people and treat them with dignity.

5. Self-esteem. I'm okay with not rewarding substandard performance.

6. When we did time in the local public system, my dad made it clear that we were not there to socialize or join "clubs". We were there to learn.


We will have failed if any one of you graduates from this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky — to be alive and to be an American.

I'm not sure if I like that last statement. Is the purpose of American education to create citizens who consider themselves lucky to be alive and American?

Or is the purpose of American education to train our children to think logically, and prepare for life as responsible adults within our society?

There is a difference between the two goals.

Anonymous said...

"Lynne Stewart, communist traitor, lawyer to terrorists, and re-used scumbag extraordinaire was sentenced to 10 years by a judge in Manhattan!"

You know it Jingo! She should consider herself lucky. We know what this country used to do to traitors don't we.

Pris

Anonymous said...

We need a lot more authoritatian attitudes in this country. How do you think the situation got to such a sorry state, what with gangs, illiteracy, illegimate children born to teenage girls, out of control welfare to the point where it's a family's profession, lack of discipline in both the home & the school, etc. etc. A pathetic feel good mentality, the 'right' to respect whether earned or not, & many other misquided attitudes that have brought us to the pathetic state this country is in now. Authority has been sadly lacking, both in the home as well as schools.

Silvrlady

Mustang said...

And I think psibond promotes an extreme left wing agenda —a utopian one at that, an authoritarian one that is guaranteed to generate a lot of bitter controversey if put into effect.

Oh wait ... it was put into effect. Now the federal government is keeping electronic records of all Americans and can send out threatening letters if one happens to have too much blood sugar, too much chlorestoral, or has an excess of body fat.

Praeger is a commentator. He has an opinion. He's entitled to that opinion.

Psibond is a pinhead. He has an opinion. He's entitled to that opinion, even if he is an effing moron —of which there is little doubt.

JINGOIST said...

Yes indeed Pris! As silvrlady said, "give that judge a raise!"

Stewart will continue to victimize the people of the US with the cost of her imprisonment. I volunteer the price of the bullet that it takes to send her to Hell, where the traitor belongs.

Craig and Heather said...

Beamish:
"Everyone go home. Public education has no Constitutional mandate."

I tend to agree that the primary problem we have with our public schools is that we probably should not have public schools.





My reasoning is a little different than his, but most of the "principal's speech" is directed at "other than academic" (points 1,3,4 &5) issues which parents should be teaching their own children at home. That can't be done when we hand off our kids to other people to train.

I've got no problem at all with parents directly (even corporately) enlisting the help of others who have skills and experience that moves beyond their own. But the responsibility for the training is ultimately ours and we give up a huge measure of control over what and how our kids learn when we pool resources via taxation and allow the state to determine what is important for our children to know.

H

My Files said...

Ducky's here How do you live with yourself? How do you wake up every morning and say, yes, this is just new America is fine?

psi bond said...

Will: psi, your perspective is off. The majority, the former silent majority in this country, is conservative. The evidence shows that they're waking up, and speaking out against the insanity. The educational system in the US today would be better described as child abuse by neglect, and that needs to Change Now.

Your perspective is off kilter, Will. Despite what you've been told, conservatives in this country have never been silent.

Most Americans do not believe that membership in a club or other group somehow strips them of their individual identity. Cultural diversity is an American value. Robbing them of their ethnic heritage by indoctrinating their children will not achieve a utopia in America, as Prager promises. (Students should have the freedom to assemble in their clubs they want.) Nor will having school authorities require that everyone declare his or her allegiance under God, as he suggests.

All the insulting ad hominem vitriol and fierce rhetoric on display just in this thread only confirm that Prager’s authoritarian extremist program would indeed generate bitter controversy among educators and parents, and other citizens concerned about America’s future. Sensible Americans rightly feel threatened by such comprehensive authoritarian schemes from ultra-nationalist activists professing to have the right answers and the only proper love of country — and an exclusive claim to common sense.

Craig and Heather said...

PSI: (Students should have the freedom to assemble in their clubs they want.)

Kids can have clubs.

They just don't need to be conjoined with the public educational system.

H

psi bond said...

Craig et al.: PSI: (Students should have the freedom to assemble in their clubs they want.)

Kids can have clubs.

They just don't need to be conjoined with the public educational system
.

There is no valid ideological reason to ban school clubs that students want if they can find a faculty sponsor.

A Progressive's Blog. said...

I have a great idea! Let's run a Cheney/Palin ticket in 2012. That way we are guaranteed that we'll either lose, or if we win, this country will lose.

Craig and Heather said...

There is no valid ideological reason to ban school clubs that students want if they can find a faculty sponsor.

I suppose that's true if your understanding of "school" encompasses "socialization" and assume that the kids themselves are the voice of authority in the matter.

There's no sense in debating that particular point as there are countless opinions on what "school" is for.



As I said before. The real problem here is that many American parents have stepped aside to allow the government dictate to us what education of our own children ought to look like.

People become disturbed when they see values and topics which they do not approve being taught to their children. But, for the most part, still are not recognizing that this is precisely what happens when we let someone else parent our kids for us.

H

FrogBurger said...

I love it.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity — your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

Bravo! That's what truly matters. The values of an individual, not his genetic makeup.
I agree that clubs should not separate and create divisions within the context of the public school system. Outside schools, kids and adults can do whatever they feel like.

I love most of his propositions and am laughing at psi bond who deems that authoritarian. If discipline, high standards, focus and a sense of the real life mean authoritarian, I'll take that kind of authoritarianism.

But overall, I'd rather see public schools go away. The lefty parents can send their children to lefty schools and conservative ones to conservative institutions.

That would be the best experiment. Then we could see who is the best prepared for life.

psi bond said...

There is no valid ideological reason to ban school clubs that students want if they can find a faculty sponsor.

I suppose that's true if your understanding of "school" encompasses "socialization" and assume that the kids themselves are the voice of authority in the matter.

Of course, one purpose of school is to enable students to fit into modern society. But, probably, you have in mind a more sinister ideological definition of ‘socialization’. I assume that, on school premises after hours, with proper supervision, kids should have the freedom to develop their interests as they wish.

There's no sense in debating that particular point as there are countless opinions on what "school" is for.

Dennis Prager’s is one of those opinions. Your opinion that there’s no sense in debating the purpose of education hasn’t stopped the debate above.

As I said before. The real problem here is that many American parents have stepped aside to allow the government dictate to us what education of our own children ought to look like.

It is not a new trend that parents expect institutions of learning to prepare children to be productive citizens. Nor is your ideological slant characterizing that as supposedly evil government dictation new.

People become disturbed when they see values and topics which they do not approve being taught to their children. But, for the most part, still are not recognizing that this is precisely what happens when we let someone else parent our kids for us.

People do become disturbed when they see their children being taught things they do not approve of — like when, in Dover, PA, the school board decided it would have teachers introduce anti-evolution concepts in the biology curriculum (it was opposed by parents, who sued and won).

Parents in America have the option to take their kids out of school and home-school them if they believe that accessible institutions of learning will not teach their kids what they want them to know. Or they can establish a self-sufficient community like the Amish.

Z said...

Heather, thank God that this "to be alive and to be an American." doesn't preclude the other.

And, many parents have abdicated their responsibilities as parents altogether, anyway.

TWenty years ago, a friend was bemoaning the fact that her son Max, then 8 or so, was doing terribly in school (not stupid, just socially making terrible trouble)....I was telling her how sorry I was and what a stress that must be for her and her husband.."No", she said "...between 8 and 3, Max is the SCHOOL'S PROBLEM and that's what we tell the principal."

And we wonder about why our kids are doing so badly?
I often wonder how max turned out.

psi bond said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
psi bond said...

Frog: I love most of his propositions and am laughing at psi bond who deems that authoritarian. If disciplie, high standards, focus and a sense of the real life mean authoritarian, I'll take that kind of authoritarianism.

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

Craig and Heather said...

PSI:

But, probably, you have in mind a more sinister ideological definition of ‘socialization’.

LOL! You're funny.

I believe in comprehensive, realistic socialization of children which offers extensive interaction with all age levels rather than the artificial, "age-specific" socialization that generally exists in standard public school systems.


with proper supervision, kids should have the freedom to develop their interests as they wish.

Agreed.....Children need to learn to make decisions and be encouraged to develop healthy interests. But I expect your definition of "proper supervision" differs from mine.

Dennis Prager’s is one of those opinions. Your opinion that there’s no sense in debating the purpose of education hasn’t stopped the debate above.

Dennis Prager can say whatever he wants. I was referring to debate centering on your opinion of the point of public education vs mine.

It is not a new trend that parents expect institutions of learning to prepare children to be productive citizens.

I did not say it is a "new" trend. Of course, just because something has been done for years doeasnt make it "right".

I do not fully oppose the existence of "institutions of learning". Rather, have stated that the concept of "public education" is a seriously flawed one which won't be resolved by a political tug of war over whether "right" or "left" wing agenda dominates the curricula.

Z said...

People, you've got to go see that Progressive commenter's blog. NO information on their platform, nothing constructive, it's all Bush and Whitman...it's really quite revealing!

Ducky's here said...

shoprat, the Department of Education is unconstitutional. What other departments are unconstitutional.

Please answer, I really enjoy it when you right wing constitutional scholars dig yourself a big hole.

Anyway, here's the deal. Did you notice the ruling by the Federal bench regarding Massachusetts and the Defense of Marriage Act? Probably not since you spend too much time wasted with the likes of Prager but here's the gist.
The Defense of Marriage Act intrudes on Massachusetts' standing to legislate civil marriage.

There' your opening. Get a group of advanced scholars like Beamish and mustang and bring your suits. Health care, education ... go to it.


Also let me remind you that the likes of Prager really don't much care about the problems of educating children. That complex question doesn't concern them. What they care about is the "free market"(LMAO) and controlling instruction so that it is biblically compliant and minorities don't get uppity.
It's pretty transparent.

Craig and Heather said...

Z,

I'm thankful to be both. Just wondering why it should be the school system's job to instill that gratitude. You know?



Yes. It seems many parents have just walked away from all sense of responsibility. It's a vicious circle, as each successive generation becomes a bit more distant. Parenting is a tough job and we people tend to naturally be selfish. The public school system offers extended, "free" baby-sitting so people don't have to be around children they really don't like all that much.

I know that sounds harsh, but I've lost count of the number of times I've heard moms moaning about how long the summer is or unashamedly chewing out a tired, cranky toddler in a very public place--or just acting as though the child doesn't exist... Very, very sad :(

H

Z said...

Heather, you say "I'm thankful to be both. Just wondering why it should be the school system's job to instill that gratitude. You know?"

No, I don't wonder. It's NOT their 'job'...but I was raised loving this country and got a LOT of that at home and a HECK of a lot of it at school not by being told "LOVE AND BE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR COUNTRY" but by soaking that in from the messages we got; Proud founding fathers, daring explorers, fighting for rights, the end of slavery, the wonder and awe at our Constitution and our flag, etc .

I know what you mean about parents treating their children so badly and actually being anxious to get them out of their hair; I've seen so much of it, too.
There's a birth control method commercial on TV now that shows a lovely black woman who comes home to her family only to see the little one's misbehaving, the older one's dropped something...I'm paraphrasing, but the voice over says "Good thing for your birth control!" It's one of the most disgusting messages I've ever seen on television. They make this commercials and do focus groups to see how the message was rec'd...they'd never play it if it wasn't 'tried and true' for their focus audiences. This is how we look at children these days.."Oh, gee..SO GLAD I don't have to have ANOTHER one of those.."
(Planned Parenthood's founder and racist, Margaret Sanger, would LOVE this commercial, come to think of it.."let's get black moms to STOP PROCREATING. and NOW"..a deep, dark secret "progressives" don't share)

God help us all.

psi bond said...

Frog: I love most of his propositions and am laughing at psi bond who deems that authoritarian. If disciplie, high standards, focus and a sense of the real life mean authoritarian, I'll take that kind of authoritarianism.

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

Ducky's here said...

Bingo! Someone just circled the bases.

Elmers Brother said...

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

now is someone would just tell the jihadis we'd all be happy now wouldn't we.

FrogBurger said...

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

Next time be specific in what is authoritarian and what is not in your comment. You didn't mention what you were deeming authoritarian. You engulfed everything as "extreme right wing authoritarianism."

So your comment is invalid due to its superficiality. Typical right = authoritarian fascist comment from the shallow left.

Craig and Heather said...

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

I can be a good citizen without the pledge of allegiance to guide me. It is my belief in God that requires it.

But since you brought it up:


Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now He strictly commands all men everywhere to repent,
because He has appointed a day in which He is going to judge the world in righteousness by a Man whom He appointed, having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead. Acts 17:30-31


While it's true the acknowledgment cannot be forced, it is still required. Not by any human institution but the one who is the ultimate authority over all.

What one does today with his knowledge of the Person of Jesus Christ will determine his eternity. It's non-negotiable and not a bit "tolerant" or "loving" to shrug off a person's non-belief.

Because of the nature of conversion of a soul, I don't advocate any form of governmental coercion in this area.

H

Ducky's here said...

That's certainly true from your tradition, Heather.

Now, do you want to join Prager and fight it out in the public schools? Because you are going to find people who fight back. That's just the name of the tune.

Better to home school, no? Because we are not going to accept intelligent design or young earth theory. We aren't going to accept that "evolution should be taught a a theory" because all science is theory and the very statement indicates and agenda.
Theories fall all the time, just look at what happened in quantum electronics the other day.

The public schools are not the evangelical schools. There are charters and home schooling that makes allowance for that demand so problem solved.

Anonymous said...

Ducky,
What you said about the choice of charter schools reminds me of a conversation I had about health care. The argument was that having government health care would not take away the choice of private providers. My dispute is that if you are required to pay for the public option but use the private one (e.g., charter schools) you end up paying twice. Would you advocate this, or would you have some other way to account for this?

tio

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky,


Now, do you want to join Prager and fight it out in the public schools?



If you've read my comments here, you can probably discern that I'm not wild about Prager's solution even though I might agree with his observation of the symptoms. The point of contention for me is not "what should public schools be teaching" but "whether state oversight is an appropriate replacement for parental guidance".

As I said, 4 of Prager's 6 points address character issues rather than academic and I don't believe it is the state's job to develop children in that area.


Better to home school, no?

We do.

IMO, those who agree with Prager might want to look a little deeper into what is at the root of the problem.

The public schools are not the evangelical schools. There are charters and home schooling that makes allowance for that demand so problem solved.

I don't foresee any potential dissolution of the public school system in our country.
So long as the govt respects religious boundaries, your solution might be the only reasonable one.

Unfortunately, some states dictate to home and private schools what ought to be taught and require that parents answer to the state as the final authority. Again, this might be considered an overreach on the part of the state.

And tio makes a good point concerning double payment. But, it isn't likely the govt is interested in giving us a break.

H

Z said...

Heather, I see now what I was curious about today from your remarks...This isn't a 'solution' from Prager, he writes like this to show clearly the kinds of things he'd like to see for American children, things he'd promote; his attempt at showing people why our schools are failing our children so badly. Character is one of those things and I believe he illustrates that well with certain of his listed points.
This isn't a PRIMER, it's a clever way of showing what he feels is wrong with our schools.

Clothing is important, in my opinion. Going to school is not going to the beach or on a hike....nor is it to telegraph young sexuality...but it does, today, in so many of our kids we see leaving high schools...
That's not a school's duty to fix, it's the PARENTS but, if the parents won't care enough about their children, then perhaps laying down the law as Prager does as a make-believe principal could help?

One can't teach CHARACTER, really, but one CAN demand in school the kinds of things which might inform a child what is expected of good students, good citizens, etc...

by the way, who said anything about requiring god anywhere?

Elmers Brother said...

One can't teach CHARACTER, really, but one CAN demand in school the kinds of things which might inform a child what is expected of good students, good citizens, etc...

public educations expectations are too low for most children anyway...some refer to it as dumbing down...

Z said...

Elbro, usually the 'dumbing down' refers to academics, not character issues, but I'd say you're right, ......I'm sure our principals and teachers today also are dumbing down our kids by not expecting their character to show integrity, kindness, responsibility, etc..
hence, the bullying, girls in fist fights, etc.....
what a sad state of affairs.(and ya, affairs, too)

Deborah on the Bayside said...

Then all the world would be right side up.

So nice to contemplate a breath of liberty wafting through the authoritarian halls of the left who incubate victims instead of victors.

My only comment is on the clubs of language. I think I know what he means, but we had lots of kids in French, Spanish and Latin clubs in school, and it was a wonderful way to share a common interest. I'll bet Prager suspects they'd shelter the detritus of victim groupies.

BTW... anyone who associates the young earth theory with Prager hasn't listened to him much. Before Ducky steps in it further, he should read ALL the lyrics to This Land is Your Land. It's a clever message against private property - Guthrie is gently poking, not ranting, to win his point. Something modern lefties don't seem to be capable of.

psi bond said...

But, probably, you have in mind a more sinister ideological definition of ‘socialization’.

Craig et al.: LOL! You're funny.

Reading the ideas offered here requires me to have a sense of humor.

I believe in comprehensive, realistic socialization of children which offers extensive interaction with all age levels rather than the artificial, "age-specific" socialization that generally exists in standard public school systems.

If you are referring to a system of non-age specific interaction in a classroom setting, there have been experimental schools that implement that. In a social setting, what you want to call socialization is age=old in playgrounds and schoolyards everywhere.

with proper supervision, kids should have the freedom to develop their interests as they wish.

Agreed.....Children need to learn to make decisions and be encouraged to develop healthy interests. But I expect your definition of "proper supervision" differs from mine.

My definition of "proper supervision" does not differ from one that is mutually acceptable to parents and school administrators.

Dennis Prager’s is one of those opinions. Your opinion that there’s no sense in debating the purpose of education hasn’t stopped the debate above.

Dennis Prager can say whatever he wants.

That he can is not in dispute. And we can say whatever we want about what Prager has said.

I was referring to debate centering on your opinion of the point of public education vs mine.

If you consider it pointless, I don’t know why you are posting here to me. However, theories of education, efforts to design appropriate curricula, experimentation with techniques aimed at making mathematics and reading easier, and the like are among the perennial topics of discussion. In advanced economies, education has to meet an increasing diversity of specialized needs.

It is not a new trend that parents expect institutions of learning to prepare children to be productive citizens.

I did not say it is a "new" trend. Of course, just because something has been done for years doeasnt make it "right".

I was not saying you said that is a new trend; I was pointing out that it is not. And it is not an unreasonable expectation for a parent to make, considering the overall success rate in preparing graduates to cope in the modern world.

I do not fully oppose the existence of "institutions of learning". Rather, have stated that the concept of "public education" is a seriously flawed one which won't be resolved by a political tug of war over whether "right" or "left" wing agenda dominates the curricula.

That is especially true with regard to persistent attempts by the religious right to adjust academic curricula to conform to its reading of the Bible, at the expense of a civilized understanding and appreciation of science.

The fundamental aim of contemporary education is to equip the young with sufficient levels of literacy, numeracy, and basic knowledge for participating in the complexities of modern work and society when they attain adulthood.

psi bond said...

Craig et al.: While it's true the acknowledgment cannot be forced, it is still required. Not by any human institution but the one who is the ultimate authority over all.

So, then, you disagree with Prager on his attitude toward the pledge. One should have the option in America to decline to recite the pledge of allegiance.

What one does today with his knowledge of the Person of Jesus Christ will determine his eternity. It's non-negotiable and not a bit "tolerant" or "loving" to shrug off a person's non-belief.

It is appropriate to allow a person not to participate in a pledge requiring a public acknowledgment of a god if he chooses not to do so.

Because of the nature of conversion of a soul, I don't advocate any form of governmental coercion in this area.

Because religious belief is personal, I don’t either.

Craig and Heather said...

Z,

This isn't a 'solution' from Prager, he writes like this to show clearly the kinds of things he'd like to see for American children, things he'd promote; his attempt at showing people why our schools are failing our children so badly. Character is one of those things and I believe he illustrates that well with certain of his listed points.
This isn't a PRIMER, it's a clever way of showing what he feels is wrong with our schools.


I apologize if my comments have been confusing for you. I'm fine with Prager offering a fantasy principal perspective. And I can appreciate that he wrote an article that reflects his idea of what is wrong with the schools. I really did follow on that.



He's entitled to his opinion, and I expect a lot of people would agree with him. I took one step farther out as I believe that the problem goes beyond the failures within the public school system. My view is that the failure is as much parental as it is scholastic, so my comments were running in that direction.

I wasn't trying to be antagonistic--the post just caused me to think.

Not sure if you were asking me or someone else where God got injected into the discussion

Am I still coming on too strong? It isn't deliberate and I can try harder to tone it down.

If your question was a general one, I would guess Prager's reference to the Pledge (one nation, under God) is the sticking point.

H

beamish said...

Anyway, here's the deal. Did you notice the ruling by the Federal bench regarding Massachusetts and the Defense of Marriage Act? Probably not since you spend too much time wasted with the likes of Prager but here's the gist.
The Defense of Marriage Act intrudes on Massachusetts' standing to legislate civil marriage.

Get a group of advanced scholars like Beamish and mustang and bring your suits. Health care, education ... go to it.


Although I really shouldn't have to remind you, Ducky, that an honest discussion begins with you admitting that you are an imbecile, I do find in my experience with the left-wing that that particular side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on illiteracy. Perhaps you did not notice the topic here is public education?

So the people of Massachussetts are gay. What's next from your headline updates, clouds carry rain?

Craig and Heather said...

If you are referring to a system of non-age specific interaction in a classroom setting, there have been experimental schools that implement that. In a social setting, what you want to call socialization is age=old in playgrounds and schoolyards everywhere.

No. I'm referring to a setting that resembles the world in which the children will enter as adults. Even in a classroom or schoolyard setting, there is a lack of true, broad-spectrum social conditioning. The age range you cite is still a very small one and is a particularly poor way to encourage a healthy respect for one's elders.





I was referring to debate centering on your opinion of the point of public education vs mine.

If you consider it pointless, I don’t know why you are posting here to me.

Okay, you seem to be completely (deliberately?) missing what I'm saying, so I'm going to try one last time...

I have no problem discussing education in general and am not opposed to comparing notes on differing philosophies. I did not say I think it is pointless to civilly discuss public education for any reason.

If you will return to my original statement, (July 19, 2010 2:09 PM) you can see that I was specifically saying to you that I see it would be pointless to argue with you about whether public schools ought to be considered social engineering outlets via clubs because I know there are many different ideas about what "school" is for.

Debate is not the same as friendly discussion. If you're actually listening and willing to honestly exchange ideas, I'm totally open to polite conversation, even in areas we might disagree strongly.

That is especially true with regard to persistent attempts by the religious right to adjust academic curricula to conform to its reading of the Bible...

I'm not of the "religious right". That's an emotional button that "non conservative" people like to push in order to throw a wrench into a potentially meaningful discussion. Doesn't work on me.


The fundamental aim of contemporary education is to equip the young with sufficient levels of literacy, numeracy, and basic knowledge for participating in the complexities of modern work and society when they attain adulthood.

And apparently there are some serious breaches that have occurred in those goals or people like Prager wouldn't have a soapbox on which to stand.



So, then, you disagree with Prager on his attitude toward the pledge. One should have the option in America to decline to recite the pledge of allegiance.

The pledge of allegiance is not scripture (even if it does include "under God") and is not a hill on which I'm prepared to die.

Anyone can say the words--and not mean them.

Conversely, a person can be a stellar citizen and never have even heard the pledge.

I'm not sure what Prager's attitude actually is, and you may well be overreacting on this.

H

Anonymous said...

Heather: "The pledge of allegiance is not scripture (even if it does include "under God") and is not a hill on which I'm prepared to die."

Don't worry Heather, plenty have died on that hill so you can utter whatever it is you're trying to say.


"Anyone can say the words--and not mean them."

Yes, and anyone can do that in church too......so?


Pris

psi bond said...

If you are referring to a system of non-age specific interaction in a classroom setting, there have been experimental schools that implement that. In a social setting, what you want to call socialization is age=old in playgrounds and schoolyards everywhere.

Craig et al.: No. I'm referring to a setting that resembles the world in which the children will enter as adults. Even in a classroom or schoolyard setting, there is a lack of true, broad-spectrum social conditioning. The age range you cite is still a very small one and is a particularly poor way to encourage a healthy respect for one's elders.

“a setting that resembles the world in which the children will enter”? Are you talking about a mockup of the world? Maybe something like SimCity?

Once one begins to think in such wider terms, one sees the world and everything in it as a university, and as providing many opportunities for the receptive mind. The best schools make use of these and other opportunities for instruction — queues of school children at the local museum, at a theater matinee, in a party traveling abroad, exemplify this access of the wider domain., which lies in wait every day for people of every age.

I was referring to debate centering on your opinion of the point of public education vs mine

If you consider it pointless, I don’t know why you are posting here to me.

Okay, you seem to be completely (deliberately?) missing what I'm saying, so I'm going to try one last time...

Thanks.

I have no problem discussing education in general and am not opposed to comparing notes on differing philosophies. I did not say I think it is pointless to civilly discuss public education for any reason.

Unlike some aggressive rightwingers on this site, I am always in favor of civil discussion.

If you will return to my original statement, (July 19, 2010 2:09 PM) you can see that I was specifically saying to you that I see it would be pointless to argue with you about whether public schools ought to be considered social engineering outlets via clubs because I know there are many different ideas about what "school" is for.

You said,

“There's no sense in debating that particular point as there are countless opinions on what ‘school’ is for.”

and
“I was referring to debate centering on your opinion of the point of public education vs mine”.

You did not previously say that you consider clubs to be social engineering programs. Prager states, “American public schools were created to make better Americans.” That is social engineering.

Debate is not the same as friendly discussion. If you're actually listening and willing to honestly exchange ideas, I'm totally open to polite conversation, even in areas we might disagree strongly.

I am doing that.

psi bond said...

Concluded

That is especially true with regard to persistent attempts by the religious right to adjust academic curricula to conform to its reading of the Bible...

I'm not of the "religious right". That's an emotional button that "non conservative" people like to push in order to throw a wrench into a potentially meaningful discussion. Doesn't work on me.

Sorry if it seemed I was confusing what you said with what people on the religious right advocate. I was not speaking of you personally. The folks in the religious right are often politically active in doggedly working for change in school — mainly biology —curricula to fit literal Christian interpretations of their scripture, thereby threatening the civilized appreciation and understanding of modern science.

The fundamental aim of contemporary education is to equip the young with sufficient levels of literacy, numeracy, and basic knowledge for participating in the complexities of modern work and society when they attain adulthood.

And apparently there are some serious breaches that have occurred in those goals or people like Prager wouldn't have a soapbox on which to stand.

No, people like Prager have vociferously asserted that there are serious breaches in those goals, thus giving them a soapbox on which to stand.

So, then, you disagree with Prager on his attitude toward the pledge. One should have the option in America to decline to recite the pledge of allegiance.

The pledge of allegiance is not scripture (even if it does include "under God") and is not a hill on which I'm prepared to die.

The pledge is not scripture; it is an infringement of freedom of religion — one that many Americans are prepared to make a stand against.

Anyone can say the words--and not mean them.

A person of integrity would not do that.

Conversely, a person can be a stellar citizen and never have even heard the pledge.

That is an unlikely hypothetical.

A “stellar” citizen does not even need to believe in a god.

I'm not sure what Prager's attitude actually is, and you may well be overreacting on this.

Prager makes it clear that he expects all students who are under his control to say the pledge, and if they don’t know the words, “your teachers will hand them out to you.” I think Prager is overreacting aggressively about a posited obligation to say the pledge.

psi bond said...

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

Frog: Next time be specific in what is authoritarian and what is not in your comment. You didn't mention what you were deeming authoritarian. You engulfed everything as "extreme right wing authoritarianism.".

I did not use the term "extreme right wing authoritarianism." You did.

(However, authoritarianism is a pervasive approach in Prager's hypothetical manifesto.)

So your comment is invalid due to its superficiality. Typical right = authoritarian fascist comment from the shallow left.

So your quote of my words is invalid. As are the hackneyed words you put in my mouth as a result of it.

psi bond said...

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

Bro: now is someone would just tell the jihadis we'd all be happy now wouldn't we.

Tell Prager, Bro. But it seems that those you refer to are volunteers to their radical militant faith.

beamish said...

I'm offended that Thank-God-It's-Friday's doesn't serve baked potatoes with its steak dinners.

As if God would ever eat a steak without a baked potato. Sheer lunacy.

Speaking of lunacy....

The pledge is not scripture; it is an infringement of freedom of religion — one that many Americans are prepared to make a stand against.

Are they going to wear pink feather boas and scream through bullhorns?

Craig and Heather said...

Pris,

I'm not sure what I did to cause you to assume the worst about me, but I do apologize for whatever the offense was. It wasn't intentional.

psi bond said...

Craig et al.: While it's true the acknowledgment cannot be forced, it is still required. Not by any human institution but the one who is the ultimate authority over all.

So, then, you disagree with Prager on his attitude toward the pledge. One should have the option in America to decline to recite the pledge of allegiance.

What one does today with his knowledge of the Person of Jesus Christ will determine his eternity. It's non-negotiable and not a bit "tolerant" or "loving" to shrug off a person's non-belief.

It is appropriate to allow a person not to participate in a pledge requiring a public acknowledgment of a god if he chooses not to do so.

Because of the nature of conversion of a soul, I don't advocate any form of governmental coercion in this area.

Because religious belief is personal, I don’t either.

Craig and Heather said...

Are you talking about a mockup of the world? Maybe something like SimCity?

I'm talking about the world as the "schoolroom". Life itself is the class and the process of learning doesn't begin at age 5 and end at 18.

queues of school children at the local museum,

We once encountered a group like that while visiting a museum as a family. Why do so many parents prefer to send their kids away so someone else can give them such experiences?


You did not previously say that you consider clubs to be social engineering programs. Prager states, “American public schools were created to make better Americans.” That is social engineering.

I didn't think I had to spell it out for you as my comment about "that point" fell immediately on the tail of I suppose that's true if your understanding of "school" encompasses "socialization" and assume that the kids themselves are the voice of authority in the matter.

Generally speaking, those from the "not right wing" end of the political spectrum view socialization in the same manner as you seem to think Prager does.

The difference is, he's honest and specific about wanting the society to conform to a certain standard while "left-wingers" dance around the subject and wax on about how children need to experience different views and lifestyles and learn to accept others without bias. It's easy to deny there is an agenda when kept in vague terms like that. And, perhaps you all really don't have a well-defined goal. That can be just as bad, if you succeed in deconstructing what we currently have but offer nothing of value in it's place.

Debate is not the same as friendly discussion. If you're actually listening and willing to honestly exchange ideas, I'm totally open to polite conversation, even in areas we might disagree strongly.

I am doing that.

Perhaps with regard to our exchange.

On the other hand, your opening comment was downright hostile and I've noted that you've been less than polite to others here.

Like me, you are a guest here. Treat people with the respect you'd like to receive and they more likely to respond in kind.

H

psi bond said...

Requiring anyone to publicly acknowledge a god he may or may not believe is the quintessence of authoritarianism.

Bro: now is someone would just tell the jihadis we'd all be happy now wouldn't we.

Tell Prager, Bro. But it seems that those you refer to are volunteers to their radical militant faith.

Craig and Heather said...

PSI
No, people like Prager have vociferously asserted that there are serious breaches in those goals, thus giving them a soapbox on which to stand.


I said:
Dennis Prager can say whatever he wants.


Your response:
That he can is not in dispute. And we can say whatever we want about what Prager has said.


Is Prager (and others who think in a similar vein) allowed to assess the situation and have an opinion or not? He believes there is a problem and you counter that with your own opinion. The fact that you do not agree does not negate the potential for truth in his view......

What happened to importance of tolerance and acceptance of the manifold and multifaceted perspectives that make our nation so wonderful?
Tolerance has it's limits, doesn't it? Particularly when it allows certain perspectives to butt heads with one's own view.


The pledge is not scripture; it is an infringement of freedom of religion — one that many Americans are prepared to make a stand against.

It has been asserted that the teachings of certain facets of biology and earth science--and even some literature requirements also infringe on freedom of religion. Those who have protested such have gotten next to no sympathy from people who share your view.

You are either for freedom of religion or you are not. My guess is "not", as you are inconsistent in your supposed championing of the cause.










On the Pledge (and I hope this allows Pris a measure of assurance about my view)


My point about the pledge of allegiance is not that the words are "unimportant" but rather that the heart of the person saying them makes a difference. Unification of a greater group goes much deeper than the oral recitation of a creed or particular doctrine.

Yes, Pris. There are those who have fought and died for the principles the pledge espouses. Several people in our family have served in the military and in no way do I discount their sacrifice.

I have much respect for those who have given their lives so that we can enjoy the national privileges we do.

Please do not confuse my view with that of one who is apathetic or hostile to the idea that Americans need to give honor to whom it is due.

Prager makes it clear that he expects all students who are under his control to say the pledge, and if they don’t know the words, “your teachers will hand them out to you.” I think Prager is overreacting aggressively about a posited obligation to say the pledge.

This is my first experience with Dennis Prager's view on anything. I cannot assess his general attitude by simply reading this piece and your opinion of it.

You may well be overreacting.


As I said before, we are both guests here.

Out of respect for Z and other readers who don't wish to wade through our commentary, I'm stepping off this train.

We're done.

Heather

beamish said...

Heather,

Out of respect for Z and other readers who don't wish to wade through our commentary, I'm stepping off this train.

We're done.


You expected intellect, consistency, and honesty out of PsiBond. You'll get none of those things. Ever.

As you may be aware, I personally do not subscribe to the absurd view that leftists might be capable of rational thought. PsiBond is but one example supporting my view that "intelligent leftist" is in fact an oxymoron.

The best you'll get out of PsiBond is an attempt to prove himself more idiotic than Ducky, and we all know how daunting that task inherently is.

Z said...

Engaging with psi bond is definitely as described by beamish...
It gets no one ANYWHERE...ever.
You must agree with him or you are stupid. :-) That thinking is not welcome here.

he's also starting to multiple comment and one's QUITE enough.

Craig and Heather said...

Beamish,


You expected intellect, consistency, and honesty out of PsiBond. You'll get none of those things. Ever.

I was fairly warned, actually. But I have a dominant cactus-hugger gene that frequently compels me to find the most prickly specimens to snuggle.

Can't help but hang my head in shame, though, as I gave up on the exchange before I could discover where to plot him on my "Number of Comments Required to Produce Visible Annoyance" chart. :(


The best you'll get out of PsiBond is an attempt to prove himself more idiotic than Ducky, and we all know how daunting that task inherently is.

Thanks. I'll be keeping my supply of troll chow in my pocket when psi bond is on board.

Ducky's an enigma. Sometimes he does make sense and, in spite of his barbs, has a sense of humanity.

I can't help but like him.

(should I be ducking and running?)

H

beamish said...

It's not so much that you have to "agree with PsiBond or you're stupid" but rather that you have to account for his attention deficit disorder, lack of intellect, and lack of reading comprehension skills in attempts to get him to actually address your argument rather than the argument he imagines you're making. When called on it, he slips into Pee Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I" mode.

Moron, idiot, imbecile - these labels collate the consensus view of the role PsiBond plays here. If his apparent IQ ever approached breaking 100, he'd lose his leftist street cred.

beamish said...

Ducky's an enigma. Sometimes he does make sense and, in spite of his barbs, has a sense of humanity.

Ducky goes the extra mile to make sure no one doubts his leftism by fashioning his comments to include every noxious view you might find in one of his Der Sturmer coloring books.

Craig and Heather said...

Ducky goes the extra mile...

((whispers))
Maybe, deep down, he's not really leftist after all? :D

H

Z said...

Heather, why 'duck and run'? I, too, have said there are things I've liked about Ducky here many times. Sadly, the more the right's succeeding, the less likable he's becoming.
He might not be a leftist but most people who have told us here at my blog that they're socialists and complain Obama's too far to the right usually are.

Craig and Heather said...

Hi Z,

I was teasing, noting that "duck and run" is Beamish's technique when dropping a comment to which he suspects someone in the room might respond by throwing their shoe at him.


I know you've been kindly disposed toward Ducky and have not doubted that you try to be as friendly as he will allow you to be. You're a gracious blog host and have been good to allow so many differing views to be expressed here.


He might not be a leftist but most people who have told us here at my blog that they're socialists and complain Obama's too far to the right usually are.

Oh, I don't doubt that he subscribes to a lot of the stuff that "the left" promotes. He sees socialism as a viable option etc.

But he's not totally given over to the government-as-god concept.

I know his comments here don't often reflect it, but he actually does care about what happens to people--he just doesn't see how dangerous an authoritarian structure like socialism/communism can be.

Sadly, the more the right's succeeding, the less likable he's becoming.

I can get cranky when I feel defensive of my perspective, too.

:)

H

Z said...

No, Heather, I don't know what he tells you privately via emails, but he has said he's a socialist a few times here. It's far more than 'viable' to him!!

Of course he cares about people...the problem is he's made it perfectly clear he thinks the Right does not.

Get him to change his ways, we'll all be forever grateful...good luck!

Craig and Heather said...

Get him to change his ways, we'll all be forever grateful...good luck!



I'm just nosy and found out he had e-mail contact. :D

If anything about Ducky changes, it's not going to be my fault.

H

psi bond said...

Craig et al: PSI
No, people like Prager have vociferously asserted that there are serious breaches in those goals, thus giving them a soapbox on which to stand.

I said:
Dennis Prager can say whatever he wants
.
[More pertinent to the quote of me above, you also said: apparently there are some serious breaches that have occurred in those goals or people like Prager wouldn't have a soapbox on which to stand].

Your response:
That he can is not in dispute. And we can say whatever we want about what Prager has said.

Is Prager (and others who think in a similar vein) allowed to assess the situation and have an opinion or not?

Yes, indeed. I did not say anything to contradict that — nor would I.

He believes there is a problem and you counter that with your own opinion. The fact that you do not agree does not negate the potential for truth in his view......

That it does not negate the possibility for truth in his view does not enhance that possibility either.

What happened to importance of tolerance and acceptance of the manifold and multifaceted perspectives that make our nation so wonderful?
Tolerance has it's limits, doesn't it? Particularly when it allows certain perspectives to butt heads with one's own view
.

I support tolerance and the importance of a diversity of perspectives for America. Nothing I have said contradicts that support. Prager has an incontestable right to say whatever he wants, the same as I do, and you do.

The pledge is not scripture; it is an infringement of freedom of religion — one that many Americans are prepared to make a stand against.

It has been asserted that the teachings of certain facets of biology and earth science--and even some literature requirements also infringe on freedom of religion. Those who have protested such have gotten next to no sympathy from people who share your view.

It has been asserted as well that the therapeutic methods developed by modern medicine infringe on freedom of religion, most notably by those who believe that illness is the will of God. Public officials have shown little sympathy for such believers, especially in cases involving the death of a minor from a treatable disease.

However, contrary to what you suggest, the policy decision concerning what to teach about biology and geology in science classes is not comparable to an individual’s right to decline to publicly acknowledge a god, regardless of whether he has faith in one. The science curriculum should not be a freedom-of-religion issue.

You are either for freedom of religion or you are not. My guess is "not", as you are inconsistent in your supposed championing of the cause.

I am for freedom of religion: I believe that everyone should be free to subscribe to any religious beliefs he deems proper. Nonetherless, religious beliefs should not be the basis for deciding what teach about science. I don’t think it should not be taught in science class that some verifiable scientific findings are invalid because they contradict some people’s holy scripture. It is not inconsistent to support separation of church and science in America’s classrooms.

On the Pledge (and I hope this allows Pris a measure of assurance about my view)

My point about the pledge of allegiance is not that the words are "unimportant" but rather that the heart of the person saying them makes a difference. Unification of a greater group goes much deeper than the oral recitation of a creed or particular doctrine.

Patriotism should not be measured by a person’s willingness to publicly utter a pledge that demands acknowledgement of the existence of a god who purportedly is concerned about America and is its ultimate judge. America should not be for enforcing such conformity of thought. In my view, there is room in America for both liberal and conservative perspectives, both of which can be right.

psi bond said...

Concluded

Yes, Pris. There are those who have fought and died for the principles the pledge espouses. Several people in our family have served in the military and in no way do I discount their sacrifice.

Persons who have served in the military (as I did) had to swear an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution (as I did). The Constitution does not require anyone to pledge allegiance to any god. In fact, it states that, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I have much respect for those who have given their lives so that we can enjoy the national privileges we do. Please do not confuse my view with that of one who is apathetic or hostile to the idea that Americans need to give honor to whom it is due.

And please don’t confuse my view with that of one who is apathetic or hostile to the idea that Americans should honor those to whom it is due.

Prager makes it clear that he expects all students who are under his control to say the pledge, and if they don’t know the words, “your teachers will hand them out to you.” I think Prager is overreacting aggressively about a posited obligation to say the pledge.

This is my first experience with Dennis Prager's view on anything. I cannot assess his general attitude by simply reading this piece and your opinion of it.

With or without my opinion of his piece, it should be clear to experienced readers that Prager’s aggressive tone leaves little room for doubt what he intends by choosing to staunchly uphold the controversial pledge of allegiance at the conclusion of his manifesto.

You may well be overreacting.

You may think so, but, considering the ample evidence, I don’t believe I am.

As I said before, we are both guests here.

We are both (preferably civil) participants in a political discussion.

Out of respect for Z and other readers who don't wish to wade through our commentary, I'm stepping off this train.

Readers who wish to may skip any posts, including mine. I won’t be offended.

We're done.

Speaking only for myself, I continue to be open to a civil exchange of views.

Elmers Brother said...

civil psi bond? when you keep repeating your comments?

psi bond said...

Concluded

Yes, Pris. There are those who have fought and died for the principles the pledge espouses. Several people in our family have served in the military and in no way do I discount their sacrifice.

Persons who have served in the military (as I did) had to swear an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution (as I did). The Constitution does not require anyone to pledge allegiance to any god. In fact, it states that, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I have much respect for those who have given their lives so that we can enjoy the national privileges we do. Please do not confuse my view with that of one who is apathetic or hostile to the idea that Americans need to give honor to whom it is due.

And please don’t confuse my view with that of one who is apathetic or hostile to the idea that Americans should honor those to whom it is due.

Prager makes it clear that he expects all students who are under his control to say the pledge, and if they don’t know the words, “your teachers will hand them out to you.” I think Prager is overreacting aggressively about a posited obligation to say the pledge.

This is my first experience with Dennis Prager's view on anything. I cannot assess his general attitude by simply reading this piece and your opinion of it.

With or without my opinion of his piece, it should be clear to experienced readers that Prager’s aggressive tone leaves little room for doubt what he intends by choosing to staunchly uphold the controversial pledge of allegiance at the conclusion of his manifesto.

You may well be overreacting.

You may think so, but, considering the ample evidence, I don’t believe I am.

As I said before, we are both guests here.

We are both (preferably civil) participants in a political discussion.

Out of respect for Z and other readers who don't wish to wade through our commentary, I'm stepping off this train.

Readers who wish to may skip any posts, including mine. I won’t be offended.

We're done.

Speaking only for myself, I continue to be open to a civil exchange of views.

Craig and Heather said...

psi bond. Our discussion is ended. But before we part ways:

We are both (preferably civil) participants in a political discussion.

Readers who wish to may skip any posts, including mine. I won’t be offended.

Speaking only for myself, I continue to be open to a civil exchange of views.


Civility requires that one recognize when his commentary is entirely unwelcome on another person's blog site and that he respect the wishes of it's owner.

You've done neither.

Z considers this blog to be like her front porch and has said as much. She's expressed her opinion of your view and you've ignored her.

To continue our discussion, regardless of it's tone or who's right or wrong, would be a blatant disregard for the wishes of our host.


My parents (not the public schools) taught me to behave with proper respect when out visiting. I do not intend to disgrace them by engaging you further.

Take care.

Heather

Z said...

I'm not reading any of Psi Bond's comments but see Heather quotes this; "Speaking only for myself, I continue to be open to a civil exchange of views." I take it she quotes from him thought it's almost unbelievable...
REALLY? "CIVIL" is insulting people as if you're right on every topic and know more than everyone and your beliefs are the right ones?? REALLY? That's CIVIL?

and then repeating comments is also 'civil'. My gosh.

Thanks, Heather, I appreciate your respect at my blog very much.

Craig and Heather said...

Z
I take it she quotes from him thought it's almost unbelievable...

It's there.

But it's also an "I'll take the high road" mind game tactic that is intended to cause the recipient to feel as though he was somehow less than polite for holding his ground. And he has asserted this even while denying you the basic measure of respect any blog host should be given.

You know the adage "actions speak louder than words".

Once the bounds of propriety have been breached in such a manner--and until the problem is rectified-- anything and everything a person says is subject to scrutiny as it becomes apparent that honesty and respect for others is not high on the list of priorities.

I appreciate your respect at my blog very much.

:)

psi bond said...

Craig et al: psi bond. Our discussion is ended. But before we part ways: ….

It is clear to me that people here do not accept that I have been completely honest in expressing my views —— including when I say I had nothing to do with the repeat posts that now get brought up all the time —— and yet they vehemently demand respect from me, even as they give encouragement to posters who hurl repeated savage insults at me.

Unlike you, I don’t feel I have the authority to speak for both of us, but, having respect for Z’s support of free speech, I am willing to engage in an exchange of views with anyone here defending what he believes free of subterfuge and with civility, which Z has urged.

As I said before, I really believe America has room for both liberal and conservative perspectives, and both can have merit, in my view. When I think I am right, I pledge as always to defend my position honestly, and when I am wrong, I pledge as always to admit as much.

Having said that, I still contend, back on topic, that no one should be required to pledge loyalty to some god, and no science lesson should have to be adapted so it conforms to the religious tenets of any group, no matter how large or influential. But, as I realize, many Americans disagree.

beamish said...

H,

((whispers))
Maybe, deep down, he's [Ducky's] not really leftist after all? :D


Ducky hits all the anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, economically ignorant, and historically illiterate notes to consider him a virtuoso of leftism.

Where PsiBond makes for a useful example of the societal product of areas where the geographical locations of lifetime lead paint chip consumption / exposure victims and Democrat partisan strongholds overlap, Ducky genuinely outdoes him in lack of intellectual content whatsoever.

At least PsiBond cares enough about your arguments to twist them beyond recognition. I'm not certain Ducky has even that meager attention span.

beamish said...

PsiBond,

It is clear to me that people here do not accept that I have been completely honest in expressing my views —— including when I say I had nothing to do with the repeat posts that now get brought up all the time —— and yet they vehemently demand respect from me, even as they give encouragement to posters who hurl repeated savage insults at me.

It would not take any great effort, whatsoever, to provide links to comments threads here at Z's where your welcome has been revoked, you have been asked to not post here, and you continuously re-posted deleted comments deemed unworthy of presence here by the blog hosts. Your repeated posts tactic is historical here, as is your ineptly feigned innocence.

I can personally vouch for the monumental truth in evidence that you are not at all interested in honest, respectful discussion, by the mere fact that you steadfastly refuse to admit the widely observed and acknowledged fact that you are an imbecile.

The fact is you wore out your welcome here long before your sickening attacks on Z's religious faith on the day she announced her husband had passed away.

You won't even address Heather as Heather or simply "H" when it is quite abundantly clear Heather is posting here.

Take your pity party elsewhere, shitbag. A good way for your repeated posts to stop here would be for you to find a different blogger to harass and stalk online.

psi bond said...

BeAmish: The fact is you wore out your welcome here long before your sickening attacks on Z's religious faith on the day she announced her husband had passed away.

The truth is I made no attacks on Z’s religious faith. That is a shameless distortion and an outright lie — in fact, she thanked me for a post I made at the time of her husband’s unfortunate demise, and she said she would cherish it. It is also a hypocritical assertion considering your tireless belittlement of the faith of Catholics. Nor are you correct to say that I am unwelcome; Z has complimented some of my posts and said at times she has found them interesting or informative or exactly what she herself was trying to say.

You won't even address Heather as Heather

You have no moral standing to complain about that. You won’t even address me as psi bond, but, rather, chose to mangle my screen name in rude ways. And she has not expressed a preference, who has also distorted my screen name as PSI.

But the repetitive twisting, insults, smears, and lies you employ do not bother me. I know that without any of them, you have no resources remaining to effectively defend yourself.

psi bond said...

BeAmish: The fact is you wore out your welcome here long before your sickening attacks on Z's religious faith on the day she announced her husband had passed away.

The truth is I made no attacks on Z’s religious faith. That is a shameless distortion and an outright lie — in fact, she thanked me for a post I made at the time of her husband’s unfortunate demise, and she said she would cherish it. It is also a hypocritical assertion considering your tireless belittlement of the faith of Catholics. Nor are you correct to say that I am unwelcome; Z has complimented some of my posts and said at times she has found them interesting or informative or exactly what she herself was trying to say.

You won't even address Heather as Heather

You have no moral standing to complain about that. You won’t even address me as psi bond, but, rather, chose to mangle my screen name in rude ways. And she has not expressed a preference, who has also distorted my screen name as PSI.

But the repetitive twisting, insults, smears, and lies you employ do not bother me. I know that without any of them, you have no resources remaining to effectively defend yourself.

Craig and Heather said...

BeAmish (?)

LOL! Looks like the subliminal message in your screen name has been discovered :P


Well, I know I can't change your opinion of anyone, but I see a fundamental difference between Ducky and psi bond.


Ducky hits all the anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, economically ignorant, and historically illiterate notes to consider him a virtuoso of leftism.

Yeah, he says a lot of offensive stuff here. Not sure why he does that. For the most part, I think he's just confused.

But, did you notice he also challenged my perspective (@ 6:21 PM) and I responded (@ 7:57 PM)? Ducky didn't persist in arguing peripheral details about public schooling.

You won't even address Heather as Heather


Thanks. :)

I do generally sign my comments so readers know who made them. It would be nice to be recognized as female but don't cry myself to sleep at night when someone is stubborn about ignoring that.

I do offer my apology to psi bond as I was not aware that he was so sensitive himself in this area.

Interesting note concerning the name-calling:

The first few times Ducky addressed me here, it was as "Craig". He accepted correction, though, rather than offer justification of his previous behavior by going on about how other people here call him names--or pointing to the fact that I've abbreviated his screen name to "Ducky".

Where PsiBond makes for a useful example of the societal product ...Ducky genuinely outdoes him in lack of intellectual content whatsoever.

Ducky's emotionally engaged. Unchecked emotions mess with one's ability to clearly reason. It doesn't necessarily mean he is stupid.



At least PsiBond cares enough about your arguments to twist them beyond recognition. I'm not certain Ducky has even that meager attention span.

If psi bond respected my argument on any level, he would have primarily addressed the core of my position, which is that the state has no business usurping the parental role concerning the training of children.

Granted, I'm the one to initiate the interaction with him by asserting that the existence of "clubs" are a debatable aspect of the "school" experience.

I did point him back to my thought. But did you notice that we never got back around to actually discussing whether parents or "professionals" are better suited to be the ones who determine what "socialization" of children ought to look like?

A fundamental difference between Ducky and psi bond is that, in spite of his noise, Ducky has demonstrated that he is correctable.

psi bond has, so far, talked about being teachable and then (for the most part) justified his behavior. That said, I will give him credit for apologizing when I called him for trying to push the "religious right" button on me.




Z's comment (@ 9:49 PM) demonstrates how she feels about psi bond's ongoing commentary, yet he has countered your statement about being unwelcome by citing of a few times when he was not being offensive as proof that he is welcome. Smells a little like bait and switch to me. "Look, I was nice four or five times. Z graciously extended to me the same welcome she does to all commenters....therefore, she must love it when I hijack her comment threads and incessantly argue with other visitors!"

This is ample evidence that psi bond's definition of "civility" conforms to some internal measurement to which I don't have access. I don't know how he cannot see that he is being rude, but I'm not interested in playing manipulative word games while our host is tearing out her hair, wishing we'd both just go away.


Heather

Craig and Heather said...

To whom it may concern,


On the pledge of allegiance, psi bond has said
I still contend, back on [his] topic, that no one should be required to pledge loyalty to some god, and no science lesson should have to be adapted so it conforms to the religious tenets of any group, no matter how large or influential. But, as I realize, many Americans disagree.

He said this to me, which is interesting, as I have not argued that any governmental system should be able to force a citizen to pledge loyalty to a god he does not acknowledge. From my perspective, that includes forced pledging of loyalty to the state in place of God.

On the other hand, he does not recognize how atheistic religion has determined the way science is taught in public schools and therefore denies that freedom of religion is likely to get stepped on if a student should determine to not accept the (religiously influenced) tenets of billions of years and macro-evolution.

That's a double standard, regardless of how he wants to slip around it.

I return to my own topic and will once again assert that it is parents who are ultimately responsible for the training of our own children.

If we willingly abdicate that position and hand them over to the state, we can expect to get what we deserve.







As psi bond does not seem to hold to the commonly understood picture of civility, I'll offer an example:

I've told both administrators I want them to hold me accountable for what I say here, do not wish to be unnecessarily offensive to others (even if I'm right), have extended honest apology to those I know I have offended, and am willing to permanently shut up if Z requests such.

If it becomes obvious that I am unwelcome here, I have no problem with being shown the door. So far, that's never happened, but I've left sites of my own accord when I became aware that I was being unduly annoying. No one had to mail me a gilt-edged, hand engraved invitation because I was conscientiously observing the way others were reacting to my statements.

H

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Pshit Bag,

My "distortions" of your screen name began in response to your mangling of mine and others. Do recall you always addressed Free Thinke as "Faux Thinker" and other childish, trolling tactics.

I note you don't object to my reminder that links to you being asked to not post here and your history of re-posting deleted comments can easily be provided on demand. You know your lie about not repeating posts here won't wash true. Even creating a duplicate screen name blogger profile to post them from does not conceal that they originate from the same IP address, but merely highlight your imbecility and ineptitude.

I have never belittled the polytheistic, child molestation sanctioning religion of Catholicism. I simply argue that it is not a branch of Christianity.
Regardless, I am not ashamed, whatsoever, of holding and stating that view. The need to highlight the real theological and ecclesiological distinctions between the two very different religions of Catholicism and Christianity rarely comes up as a topic to explore here at Z. The only "tireless effort" I've made in that direction is confined to a thread two months deep in the archives here, a discussion with you that went over 300 posts and ended recently with you never mustering anything resembling an attempt to address my arguments as stated.

While giving Z's visitors a two-month reprieve from your own tireless attacking efforts to derail comment threads, my discussion of Catholicism in no way compares to your incivility in attacking Z's faith on her day of mourning or your continued presence here long after being notified that you're not welcome here.

As for me not "effectively defending myself," good thing you're not attacking anyone, right?

I'm sorry Pshit Bag. It's going to take more than your lame excuses and objections to prove you're more idiotic than Ducky. I will concede that you're making progress in that effort.

beamish said...

BeAmish (?)

LOL! Looks like the subliminal message in your screen name has been discovered :P


It's not so subliminal. It's actually rather funny when I do it. I have changed my screen name to "Be Amish" during extended breaks from blogging, a joke about being away from electrical sources.

Pshit Bag also mangles it to be "Blemish." His style of argumentation hasn't passed the kindergarten exit exams.

Well, I know I can't change your opinion of anyone, but I see a fundamental difference between Ducky and psi bond.

Both are imbecilic left-wing trolls seeking reactions to their arrogant screeds. Pshit Bag is the more vain of the two, obviously, as he craves the last word no matter what.

Craig and Heather said...

Beamish
It's not so subliminal. It's actually rather funny when I do it. I have changed my screen name to "Be Amish" during extended breaks from blogging, a joke about being away from electrical sources.



Aw, I thought he was being original.

The explanation is amusing, though.

... also mangles it to be "Blemish".

I noticed that.


he craves the last word no matter what.









Last word.

beamish said...

Last word.

LOL

Z said...

as I said earlier; one last word :BLEMISH

psi bond said...

BeamAsh, your lack of common civility is self-evident. You continue to lie and promulgate distortions about me. If I don’t object to specific instances of your disingenuousness, it will be because I know that you are incorrigible and simply cannot help yourself, and because sensible people realize how childish is your conduct here.

I have never belittled the polytheistic, child molestation sanctioning religion of Catholicism. I simply argue that it is not a branch of Christianity.

You seem to have no understanding that your vociferous allegations that their religion is polytheistic and sanctions child molestation are deeply insulting to devout Catholics. And that Catholicism is not Christianity, as you have ineffectively argued for months, would no doubt strike them as the ultimate belittlement.

Regardless, I am not ashamed, whatsoever, of holding and stating that view..

But you should be. Catholicism, like the rest of Christianity, teaches that Jesus is the son of God and the redeemer of humanity. Child molestation, which has also occurred among the Protestant clergy, is not a part of Catholicism’s fundamental beliefs. Polytheism is a belief that more than one entity has the power of a god. Catholicism teaches that divine worship is reserved only to God, the creator of the world.

The need to highlight the real theological and ecclesiological distinctions between the two very different religions of Catholicism and Christianity rarely comes up as a topic to explore here at Z.

That’s because that which you want to promote to the rank of different religions is only sectarian differences between two branches of Christianity — Catholicism and Protestantism. There are not two separate religions that worship Jesus. That is no truer than that there are two separate nationalities among those holding American citizenship corresponding with a distinction between liberals and conservatives.

The only "tireless effort" I've made in that direction is confined to a thread two months deep in the archives here, a discussion with you that went over 300 posts and ended recently with you never mustering anything resembling an attempt to address my arguments as stated.

Despite your repetitive denial, I did patiently address your so-called arguments, but they are inapplicable to the taxonomy of forms of Christianity, about which you have demonstrated no understanding whatsoever.

While giving Z's visitors a two-month reprieve from your own tireless attacking efforts to derail comment threads, my discussion of Catholicism in no way compares to your incivility in attacking Z's faith on her day of mourning …..

It is not true that I attacked Z's faith. She thanked me for a post on that day and said she would always cherish it. You have presented no supporting evidence for your vile allegation, and there is none.

As for me not "effectively defending myself," good thing you're not attacking anyone, right?

I attack ideas, not people, unless people attack me.

I'm sorry Pshit Bag. It's going to take more than your lame excuses and objections to prove you're more idiotic than Ducky. I will concede that you're making progress in that effort

Thank you, BeaMash, for furnishing me with additional evidence of your extremely childish conduct here, although it was redundant.

psi bond said...

A system administrator has the capability to log in as anyone who is in the system, and post in his stead. It is noteworthy that the first of the repeat posts appeared immediately after Z told Bro to stop deleting two of my posts. He had been deleting them on his own initiative, rather than on Z’s directive. So it appears very likely that Bro has been vindictively reposting my posts. I do not own the repeat posts since all of them lack delete icons that I can access. Seeing how it can be exploited as a criticism against me, he persists in this malevolent prank. Including with the one posted at July 21, 2010 5:21 AM (PDST), when I was not online.

psi bond said...

To those who appreciate the civil discussion of ideas:

You will be lucky to find someone here who is not keener on dissecting, arguing over, mischaracterizing, and trashing the personalities of the people who don’t agree with them, and, at the same time, assert, seemingly very seriously, that these dissidents do not show proper respect.

Elmers Brother said...

A system administrator has the capability to log in as anyone who is in the system, and post in his stead. It is noteworthy that the first of the repeat posts appeared immediately after Z told Bro to stop deleting two of my posts. He had been deleting them on his own initiative, rather than on Z’s directive. So it appears very likely that Bro has been vindictively reposting my posts. I do not own the repeat posts since all of them lack delete icons that I can access. Seeing how it can be exploited as a criticism against me, he persists in this malevolent prank. Including with the one posted at July 21, 2010 5:21 AM (PDST), when I was not

not possible psi bond

wrong Psi Bond no one not even an adminstrator can make a post with someone elses account. I may have deleted a few comments to get your attention but this silliness that an administrator can somehow hijack someones account and repost is nonsense. Now again I will ask you politely to cease and desist. I will tell you that I am lobbying Z to switch to haloscan so that we can be rid of you forever.

Elmers Brother said...

besides the sitemeter shows otherwise

Elmers Brother said...

an adminstrator CANNOT login in with your account/pw

if you had your own blog you'd know this

Elmers Brother said...

and I've been at work when these comments have popped up. I have no access to a computer at work.

beamish said...

BeamAsh, your lack of common civility is self-evident. You continue to lie and promulgate distortions about me. If I don’t object to specific instances of your disingenuousness, it will be because I know that you are incorrigible and simply cannot help yourself, and because sensible people realize how childish is your conduct here.

Says the shitbag who was asked by the blog administrator nearly two years ago and many times since not to post on her blog yet continues to do so, compounding his farcical pretentions of representing civility with this pure harassment by obsessively and belligerently reposting his deleted comments, also a behavior dating back nearly two years.

Remember, an honest discussion of you would begin with you admitting you are an imbecile.

You seem to have no understanding that your vociferous allegations that their religion is polytheistic and sanctions child molestation are deeply insulting to devout Catholics.

The polytheistic religion of Catholicism's calling its theology that prayer to Mary and a post-mortem layover in "Purgatory" are necessary components of spiritual salvation "Christianity" is deeply insulting to people who actually practice Christianity.

And that Catholicism is not Christianity, as you have ineffectively argued for months, would no doubt strike them as the ultimate belittlement.

Hmm. I'd have thought the Catholic practice of exhuming corpses and putting them on trial before desecrating them ("Pope" Formosus, John Wycliffe, etc.) would qualify as their sense of ultimate belittlement. One should note the great lengths Catholics went to not spill blood in their belittlings of enemies when they held temporal and political power, either by burning their dissidents alive or exhuming and desecrating their dried corpses later. I can't belittle Catholicism further. It's already small, and petty.

But, two months of witnessing you confound yourself into incoherence in discussion of the religion of Catholicism contra Christianity was quite enough.

Further revelations of your imbecility by me but especially by yourself are simply pro forma.

Craig and Heather said...

Catholicism, like the rest of Christianity, teaches that Jesus is the son of God and the redeemer of humanity.

Catholicism teaches that divine worship is reserved only to God, the creator of the world.


Catholicism is an elaborate religious framework that is built around the core of simple faith in Christ alone as the only Name under heaven by which any man may be saved.

The officially sanctioned teachings distract people from focusing on Christ alone as Perfect, fully atoning Sacrifice, for sin, All-sufficient substitute for our own efforts at righteousness, and Eternal High Priest and Mediator between man and his Maker.

On a practical level, several Catholic doctrines leave an individual dependent upon the church institution and his own efforts to finish the work of his own salvation instead of allowing him to place his full assurance in Christ's words "It is finished".

And, like every other teaching on unfinished salvation, the teachings encourage Catholics to feel either anxious or smug about their own efforts at justification, depending on how well they measure up to the forwarded definition of righteousness. That's the tip of the iceberg but the core of the problem.

That said, there's plenty of Protestant "popery" going on and I'm not interested in playing judge over the soul of another.

When God calls an individual, it is into a healing and cleansing relationship with Him, not into a religious "experience". Both Catholics and Protestants can be true believers in Christ and these people are saved in spite of confused religion, not because of it.

But once they've truly seen Christ, they won't be indefinitely satisfied to remain within a rat maze of man-made religious practices. They have to come out eventually and God is faithful to accomplish this task.


Sorry Z and EB, I couldn't let this one slide--But won't further "discuss" it.

Heather

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Catholicism is an elaborate religious framework that is built around the core of simple faith in Christ alone as the only Name under heaven by which any man may be saved.

I know you're not up for "discussing," but I strongly disagree.

Catholicism is an elaborate polytheistic framework innovated by the Roman Empire that is built around the proposition that the local deities and legendary mythos of conquered peoples are simply aspects of a pantheon of officially Roman gods including the Emperor himself.

Catholics believe two or more of their adherents on opposite sides of the Earth can simultaneously chatter off the necessary number of iterations of the Mary prayer ritual required to forgive a sin, and that Mary can hear all of them (omnipresent), correctly discern the purpose of the incessant babbling from each of them (omniscience), and perform miracles of grace, salvation, and forgiveness on their behalf (omnipotence). Mary is but one of literally thousands of gods and goddesses in the Catholic pantheon. Her theological standing is rather pre-eminent in Catholicism, considering that that polytheistic religion demands that she be prayed to for the forgiveness of sins more often than prayers to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But still she is in that theological framework of thousands of equally omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent deities, such as St. Brigid, the Celtic goddess of fire and poetry and St. Isadore of Seville, who apparently watches over the Facebook pages of Catholics.

We could talk about Catholicism and Christianity, but they're not nor were they ever the same thing.

Craig and Heather said...

Beamish

I know you're not up for "discussing," but I strongly disagree.

I'm not arguing that Catholicism is equivalent to Christianity--and I'm not saying that I believe a person can be a cradle-to-grave devoted Catholic and have saving knowledge of Christ.

My statement concerning discussion meant that I will not engage psi bond as he is considered to be a troll.

If you want do talk about it, and Z doesn't mind, I'm good.

I'm heading out the door at the moment but will check back asap.

Don't worry. I'm not a flaming heretic. :)

beamish said...

We and anyone else interested can take up comparative theology through email if you'd like. (This thread's been derailed enough). Click the "request-a-rant" cartoon at my blog for my email address.

I am a heretic by Catholic theology, though not flaming. The auto de fe docket is backlogged.

;)

Z said...

"Both Catholics and Protestants can be true believers in Christ and these people are saved in spite of confused religion, not because of it."

I'm never ever one to say who's saved and who's not, but I will say that my organized bible study (250 women in my neighborhood alone) has probably 20 Catholics and all of them are believers and none that I have ever known elevate Mary to the high esteem Catholics have in the past.
We don't talk doctrines at our study, it's not even 'allowed', but as a leader, I've had to smooth over Protestant remarks toward Catholics so feelings aren't hurt.
I have to admit those remarks have been quite off the mark anyway.

My girlfriend's Catholic church in No. California has a huge redeemed cross on the altar, not a crucifix, and they are urged to pray directly TO CHRIST.
It's one thing to HONOR Mary, Mother of God, chosen by God of all women to bear his son (How can we not honor her?) and they do that but they do not seem to sanctify her anymore, at least the Catholics I know don't. As a Protestant, I also honor Mary.

With a resurgence of Christianity I am starting to see throughout our county, or maybe because of it, I believe more and more Catholics are starting to read Scripture and figuring a lot out on their own, like "Where the heck's the POPE in the scripture? And where are indulgences? And why is Mary only mentioned here and there and not deified?"

As Beamish knows, I don't go for Catholic-bashing here...not at all, and never have, and I will say that Catholics are devout and love God and some have just been trained to honor and glorify things that are NOT scriptural, and when shown Scripture and having really studied it, many who I know have remained at their Catholic churches but feel very differently about the traditions and vatican-type business of their church.

I don't mind a civil conversation on this. I just want nobody here to say CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That's all I ask.

Also, while there is clear mention of salvation and how one achieves it all throughout the New Testament, I feel our salvation is only between us and GOD in the end. I shudder when I hear (and I have frequently)"My husband accepted the Lord at the very last moment" I pray he has, I'm glad it gives widows comfort, but determinations like that are only God's and we decieve ourselves and others if we say differently.

Craig and Heather said...

Z
I just want nobody here to say CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That's all I ask.


I'm fine with that and personally make a distinction between the belief of an individual as opposed to the official teaching of the professed Christian institution to which they currently belong.

Beamish is right, though, that this thread has already gotten pretty off-topic more than once.


Beamish

We and anyone else interested can take up comparative theology through email if you'd like. (This thread's been derailed enough). Click the "request-a-rant" cartoon at my blog for my email address.

I am a heretic by Catholic theology, though not flaming. The auto de fe docket is backlogged.


According to some Eastern Orthodox, we Protestants are all going to burn right alongside the Roman Catholics. I've heard Calvinists call Arminians heretics (and the reverse) and some Lutherans (not you, Z) refer to Baptists in the same way. I've learned to be very cautious about screaming heretic when someone doesn't readily agree with my understanding of scripture, although I draw a hard line at the Protestant-spawned cults such as JW's and Mormonism.

Tell you what. I enjoy stimulating theological discussion and am happy to explain my perspective and listen to yours. But I'll counter your offer of e-mail with an invitation to my place.

If you really would like to compare notes, you can visit this somewhat related post

http://onmysoapbox2.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/theology-matters-a-simple-way-to-track-doctrinal-error/

and leave your opening comment. I do ask that you read the post, as it helps fill in the blanks concerning the comment I previously made that you found to be "interesting".

Anyone who wants to read along or join in is welcome. I don't have official rules of engagement posted, but strongly prefer that visitors refrain from displaying their mastery of the baser aspects of the English language.

H

Craig and Heather said...

It's okay to cuss at me in Swahili or Mandarin Chinese. That isn't likely to offend any of my readers.

beamish said...

Z,

I don't mind a civil conversation on this. I just want nobody here to say CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That's all I ask

I'm sorry that my argument says precisely that. You know I disagree with the opposite view. In respect to your stated wishes I'd prefer to take this discussion elsewhere, same as if you were to ban saying "HINDUS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS" or "TWELVE IS NOT A LETTER OF THE ALPHABET" to respect the feelings of those who may feel transgressed upon strongly enough to faint over hearing otherwise. I don't seek to squabble with the host. :)

H,

I'll visit later. I'm off to work now. I don't know any Swahili curse words, but I'll try to manage. :)

Craig and Heather said...

I'll visit later. I'm off to work now. I don't know any Swahili curse words, but I'll try to manage. :)

Alright then. Have a great evening.

psi bond said...

BeamAsh, your lack of common civility is self-evident. You continue to lie and promulgate distortions about me. If I don’t object to specific instances of your disingenuousness, it will be because I know that you are incorrigible and simply cannot help yourself, and because sensible people realize how childish is your conduct here.

Says the shitbag who was asked by the blog administrator nearly two years ago and many times since not to post on her blog yet continues to do so, compounding his farcical pretentions of representing civility with this pure harassment by obsessively and belligerently reposting his deleted comments, also a behavior dating back nearly two years.

The truth is, in the last year or so, the blog administrator has not asked me not to post here. In fact, she has encouraged me to post. Your pretensions of support for civility on this blog are farcical, considering your conduct here over the last two years.

Remember, an honest discussion of you would begin with you admitting you are an imbecile..

An honest discussion of me is not the topic.

You seem to have no understanding that your vociferous allegations that their religion is polytheistic and sanctions child molestation are deeply insulting to devout Catholics.

The polytheistic religion of Catholicism's calling its theology that prayer to Mary and a post-mortem layover in "Purgatory" are necessary components of spiritual salvation "Christianity" is deeply insulting to people who actually practice Christianity.

Catholicism worships one god. You misrepresent and exaggerate the theology of Catholicism.

These lies that you keep repeating are deeply insulting to Catholics and even to me, and I am not a Catholic. It doesn't matter that you do not think they are insulting.

And that Catholicism is not Christianity, as you have ineffectively argued for months, would no doubt strike them as the ultimate belittlement.

Hmm. I'd have thought the Catholic practice of exhuming corpses and putting them on trial before desecrating them ("Pope" Formosus, John Wycliffe, etc.) would qualify as their sense of ultimate belittlement. One should note the great lengths Catholics went to not spill blood in their belittlings of enemies when they held temporal and political power, either by burning their dissidents alive or exhuming and desecrating their dried corpses later. I can't belittle Catholicism further. It's already small, and petty.

Z said, "I don't mind a civil conversation on this. I just want nobody here to say CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That's all I ask." Hmm, that is exactly what you have been belligerently and unapologetically saying for the last two months.

Anyone can ransack the history of Catholicism or Protestantism or even America to create smears against them, but only if one wishes to belittle them.

But, two months of witnessing you confound yourself into incoherence in discussion of the religion of Catholicism contra Christianity was quite enough.

On the contrary, I spent two months trying in vain to give you some understanding of the principles of the taxonomy of religions. The sectarian squabbles you have with it do not justify saying Catholicism is not Christianity.

Further revelations of your imbecility by me but especially by yourself are simply pro forma/

It is not right or civil for you to turn every discussion of contemporary issues we have into a savage personal attack on me.

psi bond said...

Bro, despite your allegation, I have definitely not been posting my posts more than once, and I have given my solemn oath that I have not done so. Nor is there any way I can do that when I am offline. In fact, the absence of a delete icon on the repeat posts proves I am not the poster of them.

Furthermore, reposting would make absolutely no sense for me to do since it would only serve to strengthen your lobbying case with Z to install Haloscan. I may be a dissident, upsetting to some readers, but I am not a juvenile prankster.

psi bond said...

Bro, despite your allegation, I have definitely not been posting my posts more than once, and I have given my solemn oath that I have not done so. Nor is there any way I can do that when I am offline. In fact, the absence of a delete icon on the repeat posts proves I am not the poster of them.

Furthermore, reposting would make absolutely no sense for me to do since it would only serve to strengthen your lobbying case with Z to install Haloscan. I may be a dissident, upsetting to some readers, but I am not a juvenile prankster.

Elmers Brother said...

well Psi Bond I wish I could believe you but I don't. I can tell by the sitemeter and other tools that you are posting twice. You can cry all you want.

Your solemn oath doesn't mean jack to me.

psi bond said...

Well, Bro, if you are not doing it, that leaves a hacker or a bug. I am not doing it. Regardless of what information it gives, your sitemeter cannot say that I am the one who is posting posts that have no deletion icons. There is no way I could do that.

It would be silly for me to sabotage my standing or serious intent with such childish pranks.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

An honest discussion of me is not the topic.

When the topic on hand has become your posting history here, which includes relentlessly reposting deleted posts deleted by the blog administrator(s) who do no want you to post here and have asked you several times to go away, it most certainly is an honest discussion of you. Z may have stopped feeding the sick thrill you get from stalking and harassing her by no longer asking you to not comment here, but there is no indication her wishes have changed.

Catholicism worships one god. You misrepresent and exaggerate the theology of Catholicism.

Catholicism worships several thousand beings in the form of "saints," all of whom are believed by Catholics to have the omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent abilities to hear and answer prayers offered to them, and many of whom began their mythos as the local deities of peoples conquered by the expansions of the Roman Empire. Omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are the traditional attributes of gods. Hence, Catholicism is polytheistic. Or in the case of selecting a "patron saint" deity from the catalogue of them available, henotheistic.

Z said, "I don't mind a civil conversation on this. I just want nobody here to say CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That's all I ask." Hmm, that is exactly what you have been belligerently and unapologetically saying for the last two months.

Z has also said she doesn't want you to post here anymore. I apologize to Z for my disagreement with her view, and hereby repeat my intent to respect her wishes to not belabor such a discussion here.

Will you respect her wishes and go away?

psi bond said...

An honest discussion of me is not the topic.

When the topic on hand has become your posting history here, which includes relently reposting deleted posts deleted by the blog administrator(s) who do no want you to post here and have asked you several times to go away, it most certainly is an honest discussion of you. Z may have stopped feeding the sick thrill you get from stalking and harassing her by no longer asking you to not comment here, but there is no indication her wishes have changed.

You have tried to make my posting history the topic. I do not think it is fair to delete my posts when they defend my view from attack by a poster here. It was long time ago that Z reacted to my dissident posts by asking me not to post. Since that time she has evolved into a true champion of freedom of speech. That is evidence enough for me, even without quoting the posts to me encouraging in tone.

Catholicism worships one god. You misrepresent and exaggerate the theology of Catholicism.

Catholicism worships several thousand beings in the form of "saints," all of whom are believed by Catholics to have the omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent abilities to hear and answer prayers offered to them, and many of whom began their mythos as the local deities of peoples conquered by the expansions of the Roman Empire. Omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence are the traditional attributes of gods. Hence, Catholicism is polytheistic. Or in the case of selecting a "patron saint" deity from the catalogue of them available, henotheistic.

Catholicism venerates several hundred canonized saints, but they are not said to have powers of God. As Wikipedia notes, “St. Stephen is venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox Churches.” Veneration of saints is not unique to Catholicism. Despite your endlessly repeated use of it as such, it is not a logical argument for supposing Catholicism is not a branch of Christianity.

Z said, "I don't mind a civil conversation on this. I just want nobody here to say CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. That's all I ask." Hmm, that is exactly what you have been belligerently and unapologetically saying for the last two months.

Z has also said she doesn't want you to post here anymore. I apologize to Z for my disagreement with her view, and hereby repeat my intent to respect her wishes to not belabor such a discussion here.

You do not owe Z an apology for disagreeing with her view. No one owes her an apology for such a disagreement. You owe her an apology for not respecting her expressed wish concerning Catholicism, of which I reminded you weeks ago. At that time, you brushed it off and continued to belabor your rationally unsupportable proposition that Catholicism is not a branch of Christianity.

Will you respect her wishes and go away?

Concerning the most recent posts of mine that were deleted (by another administrator), Z said they did not bother her. Furthermore, since, as she declared, she is no longer reading my posts, none of my future posts can bother her. However, I do not take that as license to be deliberately offensive. I pledge to be honest, fair, and civil in expressing here what I believe or know to be true.

beamish said...

Will you respect her wishes and go away?

Concerning the most recent posts of mine that were deleted (by another administrator), Z said they did not bother her. Furthermore, since, as she declared, she is no longer reading my posts, none of my future posts can bother her. However, I do not take that as license to be deliberately offensive. I pledge to be honest, fair, and civil in expressing here what I believe or know to be true.

You were asked, nearly two years ago, and very much several times since, to not post here. You never stopped posting here.

Shove your pledge to be honest, fair, and civil between your forehead and rectal cavity and pry your head free.

And go away.

psi bond said...

Well, Bro, if you are not doing it, that leaves a hacker or a bug. I am not doing it. Regardless of what information it gives, your sitemeter cannot say that I am the one who is posting posts that have no deletion icons. There is no way I could do that.

It would be silly for me to sabotage my standing or serious intent with such childish pranks.

Craig and Heather said...

Beamish

You were asked, nearly two years ago, and very much several times since, to not post here. You never stopped posting here.

Z never specifically repealed her unwelcome?

Considering the way she views her blog, certain repeat performances here would resemble those of a rude neighbor who insists on continually barging into her home without knocking so as to present his opinions to her and her guests.
And this, while insisting that it is okay because she spoke politely with him a few times when he was behaving in a civilized manner.

Regardless of the content of the speech, why would anyone be interested in listening to such an inconsiderate person?

For that matter, if he cannot even see how obviously offensive his behavior is, it isn't likely you will be able to speak reasonably with him on other topics.

H

Z said...

Psi Bond, wait a minute...you say "Speaking only for myself, I continue to be open to a civil exchange of views."

I have honestly rarely seen a civil exchange of views in you. I have also never said that multiple postings are welcome here. They aren't.

Psi Bond, I've given you many chances but your comments have an air of superiority that is, frankly, not welcome here, and how well you know that. Why you persist (sometimes in duplicate) is beyond me. It's MY BLOG, when I've deleted you in the past, you have frequently reposted with the original date to show my readers the first printing...how smug and how authoritarian on your part. That in itself was enough to ask you to leave but I've tried to ignore and accept. Not anymore.

Setting the duplication issue aside, though, I hate to be unkind (and I remember once saying that to you and your response of "no you don't hate being unkind to me" is yet another example of why I'd rather you leave), but I didn't open a blog to be insulted by silly mind games and your hubris.

I remember that I once said I feel sorry for you for your lack of faith and you wrote back that I did not feel sorry at all.. Psi Bond, I am nothing if I'm not honest and your reactions like that are unwelcome, caustic attitudes I don't want here, those types of comments are not kind, they're just pure nastiness and take the breath out of the goodness with which the rest of my commenters contribute.

Your beliefs are NOT sacrosanct, not more intelligent, and certainly not what we must all adapt to, but that is the innuendo most of your comments are full of.

EXAMPLES: Your wrote: "Sensible Americans rightly feel threatened by such comprehensive authoritarian schemes from ultra-nationalist activists professing to have the right answers and the only proper love of country — and an exclusive claim to common sense."

WE are sensible Americans, psi bond, you are the one to profess to have all the right answers, and nobody's claimed an 'exclusive claim to common sense'.
One more example...We feel BOTH sides of the science/evolution issue must be taught when so MANY people in our country do not believe in evolution as you regard it. You twist, and insult very coyly, I will admit, you are cunning and then petulant when called on it. You see, Conservatives believe children should be taught to THINK not be indoctrinated to any one view.

So, psi bond, please find another blog. Your comment on Mr. Z's passing was kind and I will always appreciate it but you have never been kind or accepting of anyone's views but your own and so you are not a fit here.

Psi bond, this gives me little pleasure, but I haven't had problems with anyone like I have you and so I ask that you go elsewhere.
I wish you happiness.

Nobody needs to weigh in here, I'll not have psi bond piled up on here and any responses he leaves will be deleted. I'm sorry this could not have been said in private.

Thank you.

Craig and Heather said...

Sorry about the rantishness, Z.

Wasn't trying to antagonize---my brain got stuck again.

Thanks for the reminder to recognize when to let go. Will make more of an effort to improve in that area.


H

beamish said...

H,

For that matter, if he cannot even see how obviously offensive his behavior is, it isn't likely you will be able to speak reasonably with him on other topics.

Not to pile on, but I've always maintained that a reasonable, honest discussion with Psi Bond would have him readily admitting that he is an imbecile. It is not like his behavior was ever geared towards proving otherwise.

Z,

I stand in awe of your precision.

psi bond said...

My farewell observation on reason:

He who calls others imbeciles in debate is unable to debate.

psi bond said...

My farewell observation on offense:

He who finds offense in others in debate is often offended by having to rethink his defense.

beamish said...

An imbecile is one who takes two years to realize his time is up.

Have a nice life, elsewhere, Pee Wee. May your trolling find you solace with a less tolerant crowd.

psi bond said...

Doggedly calling someone an imbecile is a common way of expressing intolerance.

psi bond said...

I didn’t realize my time is up;
I realized that my time is too dear.

psi bond said...

My farewell observation on reason:

He who calls others imbeciles in debate is unable to debate.

psi bond said...

My farewell observation on offense:

He who finds offense in others in debate is often offended by having to rethink his defense.

beamish said...

I didn’t realize my time is up;
I realized that my time is too dear.


Don't let your dear time give you carpal tunnel syndrome, imbecile.

Go contemplate tolerance while you're respecting Z's wishes for you to go away, imbecile.

psi bond said...

These latest repeat posts at 10:05 and 10:06 pm have no deletion icons and were made at a time when I was not at the computer.

Bro, if we examine possible motives, it makes sense for you to be doing the repeat posts, since it strengthens your case against me. My doing it would only have the effect of helping you strengthen your case against me. Only your motive is a plausible one.

beamish said...

Once again, Pshit Bag demonstrates his undeniable imbecility, this time in the perennial form of his lack of reading comprehension skills, by:

a.) Returning to a blog he's been asked to leave for the past two years, to which he's offered a farewell.

b.) Returning to a blog his "time is too dear" for.

c.) Pretending the above continued trespassing behavior is "honest, fair, and civil."

Clue-o-gram for Pshit Bag...

You're not using Occam's Razor to find the simplest explanation:

You're lingering here to irritate the blog administrators, because you're an imbecile.

beamish said...

Clue-o-gram #2 for Pshit Bag:

Only an imbecile would think being asked to leave a place he is no longer welcome (and hasn't been welcome for the past 2 years) is up for debate.

Elmers Brother said...

Psi Bond....

Z has asked you to politely leave.

I have had nothing to do with the double posts.

I don't have time for your childish games. I work 6 days a week, have a family to take care of, car accident to deal with.

I also take my sister to 5 hours of chemo on my day off...so playing this little game with you is very very low on my list of priorities.

so I'll ask you now to go.

psi bond said...

Considering it rationally, Bro, you are the only one with both the motive and capability to do this. And it has long been evident to me that you harbor a great deal of ill will toward me. I am inclined to forgive you nonetheless.

psi bond said...

It is worth noting that Z did not corroborate your atrocious lie about my attacking her faith, only agreeing with me that I sent her a post at a difficult time for her that she will always appreciate.

Slander and smear me until your heart is filled, beamish. Pile it on until your appetite is satisfied. Unlike you, I am honoring what Z wishes.

Save for perhaps some more repeats by an unscrupulous administrator, the rest is silence....

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Pshit Bag,

I have not slandered you. You are quite obviously an imbecile, ignoring as you have a continuously renewed request for you to not post here dating back over two years.

You quite obviously believe that your creation of a second "Psi Bond" profile to post with here from your IP address is a clever nullification of the request for you to disappear, but it only reveals that you are both clueless and imbecilic.

Again, idiot, you can't argue your way back into a place that quite clearly wants you out.

If you can't bring yourself to be honest and respectful enough to concede that you are in fact an imbecile, at least have some dignity about yourself to end this charade of yours, and go do something else with your "dear time."

Z said...

Psi Bond.
I would say I hate to be unkind but I have said that before and your retort was "no you don't" so, this time, I will leave it out when I say that you have never said anything here that wasn't cutting and vitriolic and hubristic and I'm tired of it and I thought you were finally going to comply because your time is just "too dear".

I never thought, or hoped, that I'd have to ask someone to leave but I must. I once also said "I wish you the best" and your response was "No you don't", so I'll leave that out, too.

psi bond said...

If I admit to being an imbecile, can I stay?

psi bond said...

If I admit to being an imbecile, can I stay?

As I expected, an administrator is posting in my name. No longer content with repeating my posts, he is making up posts for me. The words above are not mine.

I have no interest whatsoever in continuing to post here, except to make it clear which posts are mine.

Craig and Heather said...

You quite obviously believe that your creation of a second "Psi Bond" profile to post with here from your IP address is a clever nullification of the request for you to disappear,

I count three different profiles. This is really weird.

H

beamish said...

Unlike you, I am honoring what Z wishes.

Not if you're still posting here, twit.

Take a hike, Pshit Bag. Take your duplicate profiles with you.

I have no interest whatsoever in continuing to post here, except to make it clear which posts are mine.

What part of "...I haven't had problems with anyone like I have you and so I ask that you go elsewhere" and "...I'll ask you now to go" is your illiterate, imbecilic, immature, petty little mind having trouble grasping?

It means go away. Don't post here. You're not welcome here. Fuck off.

Get it, shitbag?

Isn't your "time too dear" to be harassing Z with your childish trolling games?

Go away, dipshit. You're not clever, you're not cute, you're not intelligent.

You're an imbecile.

Elmers Brother said...

neither Z nor I are able to take anyone's online screen name, pw etc and create a post.

it's not possible in blogger.

beamish said...

I count three different profiles. This is really weird.

Not weird, but the sick antics of a pathetic loser. Pshit Bag is an unhinged troll, foolishly posting from duplicate profiles from the same IP address because he never had any intention of respecting Z's and Elmer's Brother's wishes. He probably needs psychotherapy.

It is, after all, two years now that the imbecile Pshit Bag has been defying Z and Elbro's wishes for him to go away.

I'm sure laws against internet stalking apply.

psi bond said...

I have just discovered two different profiles for my screen name. One says "On Blogger since September 2008" and the other "On Blogger since July 2010". The former profile agrees with my starting date. The other was apparently made just this month to masquerade as me.

That indicates to me that anyone can create his own account here appropriating my screen name and begin posting as me. So it may not be Bro who is behind this prank, in which case I offer my sincerest apology to him. Given the wording of the most recent fabricated post in my name, I now suspect beamish is doing this.

beamish said...

Given the wording of the most recent fabricated post in my name,
I have just discovered two different profiles for my screen name. One says "On Blogger since September 2008" and the other "On Blogger since July 2010". The former profile agrees with my starting date. The other was apparently made just this month to masquerade as me.


Nobody wants you around, you illiterate twit. Why would anyone want to masquerade as you? I see you neglect to mention your other profile signed up from March 2009. Been trolling quite a while, haven't you, imbecile?

Go away.

That indicates to me that anyone can create his own account here appropriating my screen name and begin posting as me

Except IP logs can't be faked. You're just going to have to learn that if you want to continue to harrass and stalk this blog with duplicate profiles, you're going to have to sign up with diufferent internet providers and post from different computers.

You numbskull.

I now suspect beamish is doing this.

Doing what? Using your duplicate profiles (a known leftist troll tactic recommended by Moby and Daily Kos) to post from your own IP address?

Damn, you're pathetic.

You're busted, imbecile. You talentless moron. Go away. There's no one here for you to cry to. Stop crying and go away already, you dipshit imbecile.

psi bond said...

These latest repeat posts at 6:31 and 7:13 pm have no deletion icons and were made at a time when I signed on to one of my other profiles in my name.

I do it to have the effect of helping you strengthen your case against me as a harrassing, trolling imbecile.

psi bond said...

These latest repeat posts at 6:31 and 7:13 pm have no deletion icons and were made at a time when I signed on to one of my other profiles in my name.

I do it to have the effect of helping you strengthen your case against me as a harrassing, trolling imbecile
.

The profile for this account has a starting date of March 2009. These words above are not mine.

I have created only one account here. There is no plausible reason for me to masquerade as myself with another account bearing my name.

I note that beamish, the obvious author of the vitriolic slander quoted above, has not denied posting with a counterfeit account using my name.

Any posts that do not have the blogger start date of September 2008 are not mine.

psi bond said...

Z, if you were personally hurt by anything I have said, however long ago that was (I don’t remember the words you mention), then I am humbly sorry.

I wish for you nothing but good things, albeit not the kind of America you seek to establish.

Goodbye.

The real psi bond (the one with blogger start date in profile of September 2008)

beamish said...

The profile for this account has a starting date of March 2009. These words above are not mine.

The IP log says otherwise, idiot.

I have created only one account here. There is no plausible reason for me to masquerade as myself with another account bearing my name.

Except for the obvious reason, that reason being that you're continuing to ignore the two-year long continuous request that you find something better to do than to stalk and harrass Z.

Oh look, you're still posting here. Why is that, imbecile? Got some extra "dear time" on your hands?

I note that beamish, the obvious author of the vitriolic slander quoted above, has not denied posting with a counterfeit account using my name.

I don't have to deny actions I have absolutely nothing to do with. I can't make the IP logs reflect your IP address.

The IP log and the lack of grammatical skills of your post, and the general egotistical zeal you have for quoting yourself all point to you trying to play victim to an uninterested audience.

You were asked to stop posting here. With all of your duplicate sock puppets accounts.

I know you're resistant to being honest about being a blithering idiot, but at least be honest really going away.

No need to reply, just go, dipshit.

Any posts that do not have the blogger start date of September 2008 are not mine.

Who gives a shit? Your latest desperate acts to continue to harrass Z and Elbro against their wishes for you to depart has run its course, ending as all things initiated by imbeciles do, in embarrassment and ruin.

You have zero integrity, zero credibility, and zero intelligence.

See ya, zero.

Z said...

Enough said from everyone.

Psi Bond....Thank you for your last comment, I appreciate the sentiment. And I do wish you the best.
Goodbye.

psi bond said...

Z, I wish you all the best, too.

I just ask one parting favor. Put beamish on a leash, or he will surely bite someone.

beamish said...

Goodbye, you imbecile.

Brian said...

Z said something that I wanted to comment on regarding his father learning english young.

In 1960 at the age of 8, we moved to Zurich, Switzerland. There were no English schools there at the time, so my parents enrolled us in the Swiss schools. Nobody there spoke English. So we had to learn German quickly. Which we did.

One day, my little sister & I were playing and we were speaking German to each other and we stopped and laughed that we weren't speaking English. We noted that at times, we even thought in German. So this crap about English as a Second Language (ESL) in schools is BS. Once you immerse yourself in a language as a young person, you will begin to know it quickly. What's the difference between then and now?

psi bond said...

So this crap about English as a Second Language (ESL) in schools is BS. Once you immerse yourself in a language as a young person, you will begin to know it quickly. What's the difference between then and now?

Brian, your anecdotal argument may not be entirely relevant to every student of any age. Varying learning capabilities and different degrees of language affinity have been known to produce different results.

psi bond said...

Above, beamish claimed, "It is, after all, two years now that [psi bond] has been defying Z and Elbro's wishes for him to go away," whereas Z stated (November 10, 2009 12:23 PM):

"By the way, you'll realize that I DO allow Ducky and Psi Bond to comment here whenever they like because this is a blog NOT built to be nothing but a conservative echo-chamber. I WANT differing viewpoints and discussion."

Unremarked by others, beamish has buried the truth unmarked, and enticed credulous marks here to dance, with marked gracelessness, on top of it.